Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BECKETT HOSPITAL AND DISPENSARY, BARNSLEY, BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL [By Order]

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION (DEVELOPMENT, &c.) BIL [ByOrder]

Second Reading deferred till the Third Sitting Day after 19th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — COALMINING (COMPULSORY RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give up-to-date figures showing the number of lads conscripted for employment in the mining industry.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am obtaining the up-to-date figures and will send them to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davies: Has my right hon. Friend any information to show whether the number is increasing or declining each week?

Mr. Bevin: I think my hon. Friend had better await the figures.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the figures be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Mr. Coleģate: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what powers his Ministry possesses with regard to preserving buildings and sites which can be

regarded as of national importance in contra-distinction to those which concern more peculiarly the local authority in which they may be situated.

The Minister of Town and Country Planninģ (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Apart from the limited power which I have under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, to approve an Order made by a local authority for the preservation of a building of special architectural or historic interest, I have at present no power to preserve an existing building. The provision of further powers for this purpose is under consideration in connection with future legislation. In regard to sites, the existing Acts empower me to prevent the development of any site for a purpose inconsistent with national requirements but do not enable me to secure its use for a particular purpose.

Mr. Coleģate: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is desirable that his Department should take powers in the sense indication in the Question?

Mr. Morrison: I will gladly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider his decision on the question of granting a flat rate war pension to all parents, irrespective of means, who have had the misfortune to lose either sons or daughters in this war, in view of the growing dissatisfaction now being expressed throughout the country in the delay in dealing with this important question.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I cannot accept the implication in the second part of the Question. The Government's decision on this matter was announced by the then Lord President of the Council in the course of the Debate on war pensions on 20th July, 1943, when he confirmed previous decisions of the Government against the automatic award of parents' pensions irrespective of their circumstances or of need. I can find no grounds on which to recommend that these decisions should be altered.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that there is a rising tide of public opinion, which wants to see this injustice and inequity swept away once and for all? Is


he further aware that parents are demanding justice for the loss of their sons and daughters?

Sir W. Womersley: I am aware that that is so in a corner of Lancashire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, I am watching this. It is not at all widespread and where the true position is put to the people, they have approved the Government's action.

Mr. John Duģdale: Is the Minister aware that when I raised this question some time ago, I had letters not from one corner of Lancashire, but from every part of the country?

Sir W. Womersley: I have no doubt that when it comes to a question of people getting money, the hon. Member could get letters from anywhere.

Mr. Quintin Hoģ ģ: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to take power to make compassionate grants in cases where serving officers and men have died of cancer leaving dependants destitute and not qualified for a pension.

Sir W. Womersley: I should not feel justified in selecting one particular type of case for different treatment from others in which death is not due to service.

Mr. Hoģ ģ: Will my right hon. Friend study the systems in force in America, and in some of the Dominions, whereby this difficulty is avoided and the life of the Service man is insured?

Sir W. Womersley: In those countries there is no system of social services such as we have here. The majority of these widows come under the Contributory Pensions Scheme. In the case of widows of the rank and file, they come in under the provisions laid down in the White Paper of last July.

Mr. Hoģ ģ: But is not the position of the officer completely unsafeguarded by any of the observations my right hon. Friend has just made? Why should the officer be penalised in comparison with somebody else?

Sir W. Womersley: The ranker officer who has qualified for contributory pension benefits could continue as a voluntary contributor after he was commissioned and, therefore, could make provision.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the incidence of cancer is much harder to diagnose than any other disease and—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is giving information and not asking for it.

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Minister of Pensions whether in the case of a man discharged from the Army partially disabled but unfit to work for a period of time, he will consider supplementing the pension paid to the rate payable for a totally disabled man for the period until the man is fit to commence work?

Sir W. Womersley: The adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion would involve a departure from the principle that pension in respect of war disablement shall be assessed by reference to the degree of disablement and not to earning capacity. If a man who is unable to work fulfils the statutory conditions, he receives in addition to his partial disablement pension the appropriate sickness or disablement benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts. Where treatment is required for the pensioned disability and such treatment precludes the man from working, treatment allowances equivalent to 100 per cent. pension are payable, together with family allowances.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that where a man is in receipt of a small pension from his Department, plus National Health Insurance benefit, the total amount is not sufficient to enable him to maintain his family and that in some cases men in these circumstances have had to apply to public assistance committees? Is that desirable?

Sir W. Womersley: No, it is not desirable but it is not happening. I am looking into all these cases and trying to trace to bed-rock these allegations about men having to go to the poor law. I am dealing with these cases fairly and squarely.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does the Minister say it is not happening when it has happened? I have sent him a case of that kind, of a man who served four years in the Middle East who is now receiving a small pension and has had to go to a public assistance committee.

Sir W. Womersley: It is not because of the man's disability. I am investigating the hon. Member's allegation.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED SERVICE PERSONNEL (MENTAL CASES)

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Pensions, if he has given consideration to a resolution passed by the Lancashire Mental Hospitals Board, forwarded to him on 29th February, 1944, and whether he has any statement to make, particularly with reference to the reintroduction of the scheme operating during the last war under which Service personnel discharged from the Forces on the grounds of mental disorder, irrespective of whether they were pensionable or non-pensionable, became and remained the charge of the Ministry of Pensions.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Pensions what reply he has tendered to the protest of the Lancashire Mental Hospital Board against the treatment meted out by his Department to members of His Majesty's Forces discharged on account of mental disability and admitted to public mental hospitals.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Pensions, whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Lancashire Mental Hospitals Board, which has been sent to him, regarding ex-members of His Majesty's Forces in mental hospitals; and whether he is able to make a statement concerning the request made by the Board.

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider the desirability of reintroducing the scheme operating during the 1914–18 war under which Service personnel discharged from the Forces on the grounds of mental disorder, irrespective of whether they were pensionable or non-pensionable, became and remained the charge of his Ministry.

Sir W. Womersley: This matter is receiving my attention and I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply to similar Questions on 7th March by the hon. Members for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) and Ever-ton (Mr. Kirby).

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that a growing number of mental cases discharged from the Forces have to go into local hospitals, and that local authorities and the parents of the men are very much concerned about having to maintain such cases?

Sir W. Womersley: I think the hon. Member had better await my further reply

on these matters. A deputation is to be received by me to-day after Questions, and perhaps the hon. Member and others interested will come along.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Minister bear in mind that the complaint of the authorities is to the effect that the treatment meted out to these cases in this war is not as generous as that meted out to similar cases after the last war?

Sir W. Womersley: I am aware that that is a statement which was made by the clerk to the Lancashire County Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTIFICIAL LIMBS

Major Nield: asked the Minister of Pensions how long it is taking to provide artificial limbs for repatriated prisoners of war; and whether the provision of these limbs can be speeded up.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been drawn to the delay in obtaining artificial limbs for repatriated prisoners of war; and if he is taking steps to remedy this state of affairs.

Sir W. Womersley: As I explained in reply to a Question on 24th February, the time taken to provide an artificial limb necessarily varies according to the nature of the limb, the condition of the stump and other factors, so that no figure of general application can be given. Delivery is, unfortunately, not at present up to the pre-war standard but I am doing everything possible, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to speed up the rate of production.

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the circular letter, dated 1st March, 1944, which has been sent to him and other Members of the House by the British Limbless Ex-service Men's Association, and whether he intends to take any action to remove the injustices referred to therein and also to reduce the length of time that injured men are kept waiting for treatment and limbs.

Sir W. Womersley: I have seen the letter from the general secretary of this Association. It contains a number of broad imputations and generalisations which I am in no way prepared to accept. There is no delay in the provision of treatment


for disabled men. In regard to the supply of artificial limbs, I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to similar Questions today by other hon. Members.

Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Association to provide definite instances such as those to which they referred in their circular?

Sir W. Womersley: I should welcome that. I have investigated an allegation that a man was kept waiting for four months and find the facts are that he specially requested that he should be allowed to go home and, having been a prisoner of war for so long, we thought that a reasonable request. He stayed at home for two months, but we provided him with a chair so that he could be taken out and wheeled about, and, as soon as he was ready, we took him back into hospital and went on with the fitting of the limb.

Oral Answers to Questions — INVALID CHAIRS

Major Nield: asked the Minister of Pensions how long it is taking to provide invalid chairs for repatriated prisoners of war; and whether the provision of these chairs can be expedited.

Sir W. Womersley: There is no delay in the supply of invalid chairs where the ordinary type is suitable. There have, however, been two cases in which a chair of the lever hand-propelled tricycle type was required and these take longer to supply. There have been certain production difficulties but steps have been taken to overcome them and I hope that in the near future supplies will be available to meet all immediate needs.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Armed Forces (Welfare Officers)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for India what arrangements he has been able to make with the Secretary of State for War and the authorities in India with regard to increased personnel for service welfare.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Eighteen welfare officers provided by the War Office have already arrived in India. A further 60 have been asked for

and 15 of these will leave shortly; it is hoped to provide the remainder during the next two or three months. In addition, four E.N.S.A. parties are now operating in India and the South East Asia Command and further parties are on their way. It is hoped to raise the number of parties in this area to about 12. A senior official of Toc H has also been invited to visit India to ascertain what Toc H can do to help in providing amenities, particularly in the forward areas.

Miss Ward: Are the welfare officers who have already arrived there experienced officers, and what is their rank?

Mr. Amery: They are experienced officers, mostly of the rank of major.

Army Officers (Allowances)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for India, what progress has been made in his discussions with the Government of India concerning the financial position of British officers serving in India.

Mr. Amery: Proposals have been made by the Government of India for the grant of a special allowance to junior married officers and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATE

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library an estimate of the present electorate in Parliamentary constituencies.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The statement already placed in the Library includes figures showing the estimated number of electors in each constituency in 1941. To prepare a new estimate for 1944 would, I am informed, involve a very great expenditure of labour, which it would be most desirable in present circumstances to avoid.

Sir A. Knox: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is difficult to put up suggestions regarding the boundaries of divisions unless the people know, more or less, what the present population is? In many constituencies it has gone down since 1941.

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any particular case in mind, I will endeavour to arrange that the information shall be conveyed to the right quarters, if it is available, but to make a general return about 1944, as distinct from 1941, would involve a great deal of work.

Mr. Coleģate: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to indicate the steps taken so far by the Service Departments and the Ministry of War Transport to implement Section 10 of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act.

Mr. H. Morrison: The necessary administrative arrangements to enable members of the Forces and merchant seamen to qualify for registration in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act are in an advanced state of preparation, and I understand that the Departments concerned hope to begin the distribution of the necessary declaration cards at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNEES, ISLE OF MAN

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the cases of a number of persons, of friendly nationality or Stateless, now interned in the Isle of Man under Regulation 12–5A of the Aliens Order, not for suspected collusion with the enemy, but for previous convictions for offences for which normally they would have been deported; and as at least 17 of them have already been detained for over three years and as many of them were petty offenders whose offences were previously punished by short terms of imprisonment, will he release them with the warning that any further offences will lead to their reinternment.

Mr. H. Morrison: The fact that owing to war circumstances it may be impracticable or inexpedient to deport an undesirable alien who has been convicted of offences, is not a good reason for leaving him at liberty in this country to continue to prey upon the public, and it was for this reason that special provision was made for the internment of any such persons during the war. The question whether continued detention is still necessary in present circumstances, must be

determined in each instance with regard to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. A general review of these cases, with a view to considering what releases could now be justified is in progress, but it has not yet been completed.

Miss Rathbone: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that at this stage of the war it can be justifiable to keep people in detention for years on end, merely for fear that they might commit some offence against the ordinary law? Some of them are going mad with anxiety and distress. Will he, therefore, speed up his review?

Mr. Morrison: I have told the hon. Member that I am engaging in a general review, but one cannot generalise about the matter. I think the country really has a right, in wartime, to expect people who have come here and accepted our hospitality to behave themselves. If they do not, they must take the consequences.

Mr. Silverman: Without contesting the general principle in the first part of my tight hon. Friend's last answer, may I ask whether he is not aware that in a large number of these cases the offence with which they were originally charged was a very trivial matter indeed, for which, in no circumstances, before the war would deportation ever have been contemplated; and, as many of them have now been continuously in prison for three or four years on quite petty charges, will he not expedite the review on which he is now engaged?

Mr. Morrison: I do not accept this description of the position, nor that whatever may have happened before the war is relevant to what has happened during the war. The House is aware that the conduct of some of these people is bringing unjustified discredit on the whole of the refugees who have come to this country.

Mr. G. Strauss: Accepting the fact that, in some of these cases, the man may have been guilty of serious offences, is it not a fact, nevertheless, that in some instances the offences have been quite petty?

Mr. Morrison: I do not accept that extreme description, but I am going into the case taking into account that point of view. If aliens come to this country and expect to be trusted, they must behave themselves.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that some of these men have lived in this country practically all their lives?

Mr. Kirkwood: Is there any truth in the hon. lady's statement that some of these men go mad as the result of being in prison?

Mr. Morrison: Not as far as I know.

Mr. Silverman: Have there been any cases of suicide?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Fire Party Leaders (Expenses)

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that fire party leaders have, in the discharge of their duties, to undertake a volume of correspondence and require some indoor meeting point where they can see and fill up the required forms; that they now have to finance all this work themselves; and whether reinvestigation of the financial position can be made to relieve them of this burden.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the increased amount of work now performed by persons who volunteer to act as street fire party leaders, I have arranged for the extension to these Officers and also to block leaders of the arrangement for the re-imbursement of out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred already approved for sector captains.

Evacuees (Billetinģ Allowances)

Captain Prescott: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider increasing the billeting allowances paid for the accommodation of evacuees, particularly in relation to unaccompanied children, as the allowances in many cases are insufficient to meet the financial burden thrown upon householders by the presence of evacuees.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): This matter is already under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement at present.

Captain Prescott: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider any special cases I wish to bring to his notice?

Mr. Willink: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend should await the statement I have mentioned. In the meantime we are grateful to those who are carrying on.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUNG OFFENDERS (POLICE PROCEDURE)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has tendered to the representations of the Magistrates' Association calling his attention to the growing practice of chief constables dealing themselves with young offenders instead of bringing them before the juvenile courts.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have received a number of resolutions passed by the Magistrates' Association on the subject of the treatment of young offenders, including the matter referred to by my hon. Friend. They are receiving my careful consideration and I hope to be able to make a statement before very long.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action of chief constables in dealing with young offenders themselves, without bringing them before the juvenile court, would be a very serious departure from the practice already in operation?

Mr. Morrison: I see my hon. Friend's point and I am going into it, but there may be cases in which a talk from the chief constable or a policeman might be more beneficial to the young offender.

Mr. Rhys Davies: But is it not quite possible for the chief constable or policeman to threaten a boy for an offence which has not been proved? Is not that a danger?

Mr. Morrison: I agree there are dangers about it but, if the case is handled properly, I am not sure that it is always bad. However, I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAFE, LONDON (POLICE RAID)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give any information in connection with the police raid made on the Cypriot Café in Charlotte Street which was being used as a gaming place; how many people were in the café; and if there were any of the armed forces there.

Mr. H. Morrison: This café was entered by the police on 4th March and a game of dice was found in progress. Seventeen persons were found, all of whom were arrested. One of them, who was charged


as principal, was fined £40 and ordered to pay £12 costs. The other sixteen were bound over, three of them being ordered to forfeit recognizances previously entered into. Of the persons found on the premises, one was a serving soldier, one a deserter from the Army, and three were merchant seamen. The deserter was subsequently handed over to a military escort.

Mr. Thorne: My right hon. Friend has informed me on several occasions that he has no power to close down these clubs. Will he not seek powers?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider the point but I am not anxious to secure additional powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL OPTICAL SERVICE

Mr. Salt: asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that many school children in Birmingham have recently had to wait three months or more for eye examination under the School Medical Service; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this matter.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The school medical staff in Birmingham, as in other areas, has suffered some reduction owing to the demands of the Services for medical personnel and this has led to some delays in the ophthalmic examination of school children. The authority are this week engaging the part-time services of one or more additional ophthalmologists and hope to overtake the arrears in the near future.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not the case that in a perfectly run service you have to wait a long time to get things done?

Mr. Lipson: Will doctors in the school medical service still be called up for military service?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to put that question down.

Mr. R. Morģan: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in connection with the School Optical Service, he is aware that visual tests alone are inadequate since, although normal vision may exist, the eyes of the child may possess errors of refraction of high

degrees which, if not corrected by spectacles, may lead to strain, squint or other eye troubles; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the matter.

Mr. Butler: I am well aware that visual tests of school children are in themselves inadequate to detect all those who have errors of refraction. In the annual reports of the Board's Chief Medical Officer on the health of the school child attention has from time to time been drawn to the importance of authorities arranging for nurses and teachers to refer to the school medical officers all children displaying symptoms suggestive of defective vision.

Mr. Morģan: Is it the intention in the new order of things to arrange for qualified opticians to visit schools in the same way that qualified dentists examine the teeth of the children in these schools?

Mr. Butler: It is our desire to make things better and to do it as soon as we possibly can.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Private Enterprise Buildinģ

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the subsidy for housebuilding given only to local authorities will result in private enterprise building only for sale and that owing to the shortage of homes many people will be compelled to purchase their homes; and how does he propose to deal with this situation.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): The need for building houses for letting is among the matters under investigation by the sub-committee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee which is considering the whole question of building by private enterprise after the War. My hon. Friend will appreciate that pending the submission and consideration of the sub-committee's report I am not in a position to make a statement in the matter.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the committee which has been sitting on the question as to what private enterprise shall do in housing after the war has been sitting for many months? Would it not be better if he would tell private enterprise the kind of job that has to be done and leave it to them to organise it?

Mr. Willink: I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the committee's report is now in preparation.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the Minister aware that it is because things were left in the hands of private enterprise that we are in the present deplorable position?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Craven-Ellis.

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order. May I have an answer to my question? I have been sent here from my constituency for 20 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I am a good representative.

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on with Questions.

Mr. Kirkwood: Why did not the Minister answer my question?

Mr. Willink: I am proceeding to answer the next Question because Mr. Speaker has called it.

New Houses (Estimate)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health what is the number of local authorities involved in his estimate of 4,000,000 new houses required; and the number of houses for each local authority certified as unfit or overcrowded.

Mr. Willink: The figures I have given relate to England and Wales and cover all the 1,469 housing authorities. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 30th November last to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), of which I am sending him a copy.

Air Raid Victims

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Health whether in areas which have recently suffered bomb damage, he will give power to local authorities to put homeless families into houses for which tenants are paying rent but not occupying.

Mr. Willink: Local authorities already have this power and it has been exercised in areas which have recently suffered bomb damage.

Mr. Morrison: Would the Minister look into the case of a London County Council housing estate which has recently received very heavy bomb damage, and

where there are at least 40 houses which have not been occupied by anybody for three years, though the tenants are still paying rent?

Mr. Willink: I will certainly look into any case which the hon. Member sends me.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

St. James Hospital, Portsmouth (Male Nurse, Discharģe)

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the circumstances in which Mr. G. B. Turner, of 38, Hollam Road, Portsmouth, a male mental nurse employed for 14 years at St. James Hospital, Portsmouth, was sent on sick leave by the superintendent and subsequently discharged on sick pension, without any regard being paid to the opinion of three medical consultants who have found Mr. Turner fit to carry out his duties and without the right of appeal to an independent referee.

Mr. Willink: I am inquiring into this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Medical Man-power

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the number of doctors whose names appear in the Medical Register.

Mr. Willink: The number of doctors in the Medical Register at the end of last year was 71,882. This figure includes many who are not normally resident in the United Kingdom or who have retired from practice, as well as those registered, temporarily or otherwise, by virtue of Empire or foreign qualifications.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is there any increase in the number of doctors in this country proportionate to the increase in the population?

Mr. Willink: I should like notice of that.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the number of doctors who are now serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown and in full-time employment in the Civil Defence services and any other service created during the national emergency.

Mr. Willink: It would not be in the national interest to state the number of doctors serving in the Forces. The number


employed full-time in the Civil Defence Services, the Emergency Medical Service and in other services created during the present war is about 1,100.

Dr. Thomas: In view of the fact that this figure is already known, that there are 30,000 doctors in all the services who will be seeking work when the war is over; and in view, too, of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests giving financial help to train more, is it his intention to have at call an army of potential cheap medical labour which will be economically forced to work a National Health Service, whether it likes it or not?

Mr. Willink: This matter is to be debated at an early date.

Dr. Thomas: As this seriously affects a certain section of the community, may I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment?

Ministry of Health (Annual Report)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health when the Annual Report of the Ministry of Health for 1943 will be published.

Mr. Willink: I propose to issue a summary report for the year ending 31st March, 1944; but I am unable at present to indicate the date of publication.

Public Baths and Washhouses

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have baths and washhouses for public use; and if any of them make a charge for their use.

Mr. Willink: I regret that I have not full information but the records in my possession show that over 250 towns with populations over 25,000 have baths and washhouses and that charges for admission are made.

Milk Containers

Captain Prescott: asked the Minister of Health whether he will settle a standard of bacteriological count for all rinsings of churns and bottles in view of the fact that, unless such standard is prescribed, Articles 21 and 28 of the Milk and Dairies Order cannot be adequately administered.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) on 27th January.

Oral Answers to Questions — DELEGATED DEPARTMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make some pronouncement as to the steps he proposes to take to reduce the volume of delegated departmental legislation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): This matter is kept under constant review by Departments, and it is their duty to secure the repeal of any subordinate legislation which is obsolete or redundant. No special action is called for on my part.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand from that answer that this departmental legislation, which has been endured with some misgiving as a war expedient, is to be carried on in perpetuity; and may we have some assurance that the Home Secretary's words will not be carried out?

The Prime Minister: I did not notice any reference in my hon. Friend's Question to the Home Secretary.

Mr. De la Bère: The implication is obviously there.

Mr. Kirkwood: With reference to the Prime Minister's use of the stock phrase that this is constantly under review, will he tell the House how many Questions have been put to him that are constantly under review?

The Prime Minister: A certain amount of latitude in the use of stock phrases has always been accorded to every Government as long as I can remember.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since some of us started to take an interest in delegated legislation, the number of statutory rules and orders has been reduced by one-third?

Mr. Lipson: Is the Home Secretary taking part in the review?

The Prime Minister: There is a Question on the Paper on that subject later on.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERDEPARTMENTAL DECISIONS

Sir A. Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether, when differences of opinion occur between the Ministries of Fuel and Power, Labour, War Transport or the services, reference has to be made in each case to the War Cabinet; and


whether, in order to ensure adequate attention and prompt decision, he will arrange for such matters to be decided by the Minister of Production or other specially appointed Minister.

The Prime Minister: Satisfactory arrangements already exist for settling differences of opinion between Departments by means of War Cabinet Committees, and of the powers of the Minister of Production to settle production priorities and to make allocations.

Sir A. Knox: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present deplorable situation in regard to the supply of coal is due entirely to the failure of the Minister of Fuel and Power to be able to put his case with sufficient force for the release of men to work the mines?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR LEGISLATION (HOME SECRETARY'S SPEECH)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Prime Minister if the speeches made by the Home Secretary at Mexborough, on 4th March and at Bradford, on 5th March on post-war plans represent the policy of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend in these speeches was, of course, expressing his own personal views.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Even though the speeches were made at party meetings, does not my right hon. Friend consider that to make statements which mean that in the post-war period Parliament should give up part of its power and much of its normal work, is likely to disrupt national unity at a time when that unity is most necessary?

The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no desire to disrupt national unity. I gather that he was embarking on a purely philosophical disquisition on a hypothetical and conjectural situation which might arise after the war.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of recent pronouncements on post-war reconstruction by several highly-placed Members of the Government—the Minister of Production, the Home Secretary and others—who have apparently been speaking for themselves, would the right hon. Gentleman

consider selecting a Member of the Government who will speak for the Government?

The Prime Minister: If the worst came to the worst I might have a shot at it myself.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of certain ex cathedra utterances, has the worst not now come to the worst?

The Prime Minister: On the contrary. I do not think so. Indeed, I was very much encouraged by some remarks of my hon. Friend himself during the weekend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister, if he will consider a revision of service pay with a condition that such increase shall accrue as a post-war credit.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add at this stage to what I said on 7th March, and to the statements made by the Leader of the House in the course of the Debate on 2nd March.

Mr. Edwards: As the main reason for not conceding this increase of pay was that it would create wild inflation, and as there is not the slightest justification for such a statement, does the Prime Minister not realise that, in withholding this increased payment which is due to these men, the rest of the community are merely picking the pockets of the Service man?

The Prime Minister: Of course, it is always easy to get popularity by using an expression like picking people's pockets," but when you consider the gravity of the times in which we live, it is a pity that these matters should be discussed other than with a great sense of responsibility. I have nothing to add, because Question Time is not the time when the merits of these important matters, about which there is legitimate and keen interest in the House, should be discussed. Question Time is not the time when the merits of a large question can be threshed out.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Without pressing the Prime Minister on this point, may I ask that he will bear in mind that, as things now stand, most Service men will have a far smaller nest-egg of savings at the end of the war than most civilians?

The Prime Minister: I naturally am deeply concerned with the position of our Armed Forces, and the statements made by the Foreign Secretary show that, within certain limits and subject to the reservations which he most prudently affirmed, a certain re-consideration is now being given to these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASIC ENGLISH (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the decisions of His Majesty's Government on the Report of the Committee of Ministers on Basic English.

The Prime Minister: As the answer to this Question is, I regret to say, rather lengthy, I propose, with the permission of the House, to make a statement at the end of Questions.

Mr. Gallacher: Could not the Prime Minister shorten the answer by putting it in Basic English?

Later:

The Prime Minister: The Committee of Ministers on Basic English, after hearing a considerable volume of evidence, have submitted a Report which has been approved in principle by His Majesty's Government. The Committee, in their report, distinguish between the use of a system such as Basic English as an auxiliary international language, and as a method for the teaching of ordinary English. In this latter field, several very promising methods, other than Basic, have been developed in recent years, which make use of progressively increasing vocabularies based on analysis of the words most frequently used in conversational and literary English. In foreign countries, the method used in the teaching of English will naturally be a matter for the decision of the Departments of Education of those countries, and, where teaching is conducted in British Institutes, it will be a matter for the free decision of those who direct the teaching of English whether they employ any of these methods or the Basic method. There is no reason why His Majesty's Government should support one method rather than another. So far, however, as concerns the use of Basic English as an auxiliary international language, His Majesty's Government are

impressed with the great advantages which would ensue from its development not in substitution for established literary languages, but as a supplement thereto. The usefulness of such an auxiliary language will, of course, be greatly increased by its progressive diffusion.
His Majesty's Government have, therefore, decided on the following steps to develop Basic English as an auxiliary international and administrative language:—

(1) The British Council will include among its activities the teaching of Basic English, so far as may be practicable, in any area where there may be a demand for instruction in Basic for its specific purpose as an auxiliary medium of international communication. This will be in addition to, and not in substitution for, the Council's more general activities in promoting the teaching of English for its own sake.
(2) Diplomatic and commercial representatives in foreign countries will be asked to do all they can to encourage the spread of Basic English as an auxiliary language.
(3) It is also intended to arrange for the translation into Basic English of a wider range than is at present available of literature—scientific, technical and general—both from ordinary English and from foreign languages and also to increase the supply of manuals of instruction in Basic English.
(4) Some Colonial Governments will be invited to experiment by the issue in Basic English of handbooks for colonial peoples on agriculture, hygiene, etc. and by the use of this simplified language as the medium for some administrative instructions issued by the Government.
(5) The British Broadcasting Corporation has been asked to consider a recommendation to include the use and teaching of Basic English in appropriate overseas programmes. The Corporation has already expressed its willingness to make experiments on these lines within the limits imposed by special war-time responsibilities and conditions. It is re-cognised that such developments as may be practicable must proceed in parallel with the steps to be taken by other agencies.

It will be seen that several Departments are concerned in these measures. It has been decided, however, that


primary responsibility for questions affecting Basic English, and for giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers, should rest with the Foreign Office, through the British Council. The British Council will, of course, keep in close contact with the Foreign Office and with the other Departments concerned, and an inter-Departmental committee has been established for this purpose, under a chairman who will be nominated by the British Council.

Sir H. Williams: Will the Prime Minister arrange for that statement to be translated into Basic English?

Mr. Petherick: I put this question quite seriously. Will my right hon. Friend have the statement which he has now given translated into Basic English, so that we may get some idea, by comparison of the two, whether it is possible for a foreigner to express himself in Basic English in a manner which is both precise and easily understood?

The Prime Minister: I think that that is a very good suggestion. I will ask some of my friends in the Basic English movement to see how it goes. I would like to see how it works out before I commit myself.

Sir Alfred Beit: Have the Government been able to agree on these proposals with the promoters of Esperanto?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the importance of Basic English as an auxiliary language, will the Prime Minister ensure that when it is being taught, the clear Scottish pronunciation is used, thereby avoiding the fluctuating and irritating noises that are generally made by the English?

Sir S. Reed: Will the Prime Minister direct the attention of those officials whose duties lie in countries not covered by the activities of the British Council, to undertake the work which in other areas is being carried through by the British Council?

Earl Winterton: What about winning the war?

The Prime Minister: This is in connection with winning the peace.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Have any discussions taken place with the United States Government, with a view to obtaining their co-operation?

The Prime Minister: I have had considerable discussion with the President of the United States, and, as my hon. Friend probably knows, the teaching of Basic English plays a very considerable part in the United States in respect of teaching citizenship to foreigners who have not completely mastered the English language. Therefore, the matter is of great interest to both countries. But I have not yet obtained any formal, or official, policy from the Government of the United States.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the B.B.C. to broadcast statements in Basic English, so that the people of this country, and not only foreigners, may have an opportunity of judging whether they like it or not?

Mr. Maxton: This is, for many, an opportunity for humour, but I agree with the Prime Minister that it is a matter of first-class importance. Has he considered that perhaps the picture-house would be a good medium for acquainting people with Basic English, perhaps even more valuable than the air?

The Prime Minister: That is a valuable suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Farm Tenancies

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Agriculture what protection will be given to tenant farmers whose land has been purchased by outsiders at inflated values; and if he will give an assurance that the present occupiers will be allowed to continue occupancy at their present rentals to enable them to carry on the good work they have been doing during the war in producing food for the nation.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): A notice to quit served on the tenant of an agricultural holding which has been sold since 3rd September, 1939, is null and void, under Defence Regulation 62 (4A), unless I consent thereto. While the primary object of the Regulation was to prevent speculation in agricultural land, its terms are sufficiently wide to enable me to avoid the disturbance of tenants who are playing their part in the increased home food production campaign by farming their land well, and this factor is one which weighs with me when considering applications for my


consent to notices to quit. I regret, however, that I am unable to give an assurance that in every case falling within the Defence Regulation the circumstances would be such as to justify my refusing consent to a notice, and in any case I have no power to intervene in the question of rent.

Mr. Leslie: Will this position continue after the war, and enable the people who have done such excellent service during the war to remain on their farms, or are we to have a repetition of the so-called gentleman farmers such as we had after the last war, when the tenant farmer had to go?

Mr. Hudson: I think that is clearly a question which will arise when we come to consider the long-term post-war policy.

Livestock

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to carry out a wartime census of all farm livestock; and upon what basis and by what methods this enquiry will be undertaken.

Mr. Hudson: Farmers make a quarterly return of the numbers of their livestock, and have done so throughout the war. In addition, county war agricultural executive committees are making detailed herd surveys, in furtherance of the Government's livestock improvement policy.

Production, Cumberland

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statement to make regarding the decrease in production that has taken place in several cases in Cumberland when the war agricultural executive committee has taken over land from farmers whom they have evicted in order to farm themselves.

Mr. Hudson: I am not aware of any decrease in production having taken place. If my hon. and gallant Friend will send me particulars of any case he has in mind I will make inquiries.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this matter is common knowledge in Cumberland among farmers, and will he look into this case, making the necessary inquiries in Cumberland, and submit the result in this House, when asked for it?

Mr. Hudson: It is certainly not common knowledge in Cumberland, because I said I was not aware that any decrease had taken place. If my hon. and gallant Friend will send me particulars of any cases he has in mind I will look into them.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I said that it was common knowledge in Cumberland and not common knowledge in the Ministry.

Hill Sheep Subsidy

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total number of hill sheep in Great Britain which are eligible for the hill sheep subsidy; and will be give the figures by districts.

Mr. Hudson: The total number of sheep in Great Britain in 1942 in respect of which subsidy was paid, was approximately 4,127,000. The numbers in the principal hill sheep farming districts were:—


Scotland
2,240,000


Wales and Welsh Border Counties
985,000


England:



Northern Counties
860,000


South-Western Counties
41,000


Similar figures for 1943 are not yet complete.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the importance of these hill sheep, as a foundation for other flocks, will the Minister give an undertaking that no recommendations as to alterations of breed will be carried out without notice?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERIES STATISTICS (COLLECTORS)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that on 8th October last his Department received representations about the conditions of employment of collectors and assistant collectors of fisheries statistics employed in his Ministry but that no reply has yet been received although an undertaking was given that the matter would be dealt with expeditiously; and if he is now in the position to indicate the conclusions that have been reached.

Mr. Hudson: This matter has been under consideration in the meantime, and I hope that it will be possible to send a reply shortly to the representations raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health, if his attention has been drawn to the reassessment of supplementary pensions; that applicants have been reassessed and notified of the increase they will receive, but told they will not receive it until two weeks after notification; and will he see to it that they are paid as from the date of reassessment.

Mr. Willink: The Assistance Board inform me that they found it necessary to adopt the practice of sending out supplementary pension order books some time in advance of the date when the pensioner's current book expires in order to make sure that a pensioner would always have a book in his possession and to avoid risks of delay or of breakdown in communications.

Mr. Tinker: Seeing that there has been so much trouble about these payments, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman get the Department to hurry on with payment, and not delay it, as they are doing, as the delay is causing a lot of trouble?

Mr. Willink: As I have already told the hon. Gentleman—and I think it is generally accepted—the Assistance Board are doing their utmost under present conditions.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not possible for the actual increase or reassessment to apply from the date on which the reassessment was made?

Mr. Willink: I am not clear to which class of case my hon. Friend is referring. I took it that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) was referring to the perfectly ordinary case where there is a review which comes into operation when the current book has expired, and that the question which he was asking was whether the new book could be sent in advance of that date for the new payment to take place on that date. That would obviously be quite impossible.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of a misunderstanding on the application of a supplementary pension; that some assistance boards are placing the pensioner living in lodgings, not with relatives, on the 17s. 6d. a week basis and not on the £1 a week; and will he examine this matter.

Mr. Willink: The Assistance Board inform me that there must be something quite exceptional about a case where a pensioner living in lodgings, having no resources beyond his main pension, has his needs assessed at less than £1 a week. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and cares to send me details I will ask the Board to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Trust Property (Taxation)

Lieutenant-Colonel Dower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider altering the scale of taxation when a beneficiary holds house property in trust for life upon which the levies of taxation and war damage contribution exceed the total income or, alternatively, will he introduce legislation to enable such trusts to meet the extra liability out of the trust funds.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am afraid that I could not see my way to adopt the suggestion which my hon. and gallant Friend makes in the first part of his Question. As regards the second part, I would refer him to Section 66 of the War Damage Act, 1943, which deals with the application of trust moneys in payment of War Damage Contribution.

War Widows' Pensions (Income Tax)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the protest sent to him from the widow of a man killed in the battle at El Alamein that her pension of 27s. for herself and 9s. 6d. for her child is subject to Income Tax; and if he will provide that war widows' pensions should be exempt from tax.

Sir J. Anderson: I have not seen the case to which the Question relates. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 1st February last, of which I am sending him a copy. As pointed out in that reply, the allowance granted in respect of the child is exempt from tax, and the mother enjoys the Income Tax Child Allowance of £50.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will find that the woman


has been asked to pay tax on the child's allowance?

Sir J. Anderson: That I will certainly look into. It would be wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Weiģhts and Measures Act (Wholesale Transactions)

Sir A. Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the possibility of extending the Weights and Measures Act of 1926 to cover wholesale transactions as well as retail.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this subject under present war conditions, but the matter will be considered when next a general review of weights and measures legislation is undertaken.

Sir A. Knox: Meanwhile will the President take into consideration the fact that retailers are very dissatisfied, that they often do not get fair weight and as all the prices are controlled they cannot pass that on to the consumer?

Captain Waterhouse: The Board of Trade have had no complaints on this point from retailers. It is a vexed question on which two opinions are held, but if my hon. and gallant Friend would like to send me particulars of any case I will look into them.

Clothinģ Coupons (Domestic Servants)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the possibility of extending the grant of extra clothing coupons to women who are employed away from their homes as domestic helps.

Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir. I regret that, in view of the very limited supplies available, my right hon. Friend cannot adopt this suggestion.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. and gallant Member realise that this would not take a very large amount of material, and that it is very desirable to encourage this class of domestic workers, especially as they see canteen workers who do similar work getting coupons for overalls?

Captain Waterhouse: I realise that it is desirable to encourage this class of worker but the hon. Member will realise that they are doing exactly the same work as any housewife in any home.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL FUEL OFFICE, BLACKBURN

Captain Prescott: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether his attention has been directed to correspondence, that was placed in the possession of his Department on 26th January last, concerning the proposal to close the local fuel office of the Blackburn rural district; whether it is yet possible for a reply to be given to such correspondence; and whether, in view of the facts therein disclosed, he will direct that this office shall be allowed to remain open.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The position is still being considered by my Department and my right hon. and gallant Friend is not yet in a position to give a decision.

Captain Prescott: Would the hon. Gentleman do everything possible to expedite this decision as the matter has been going on for a considerable time?

Mr. Smith: If the hon. and gallant Member will see me after Questions I will go into the matter with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when it is proposed to make a statement with regard to the Government's policy concerning the future of the distribution of electricity in this country.

Mr. T. Smith: The future organisation of electricity distribution is receiving the active consideration of the Government, but my right hon. and gallant Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that this is one of those instances where public ownership is better than private ownership, as indicated in the McGowan Report, and may we have an assurance that that Report and others will be carefully studied?

Mr. Smith: I will bear those things in mind.

Sir H. Williams: Is the hon. Member aware that the publicly owned telephones expand at one-third the rate of the privately-owned electricity supply?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINING SUBSIDENCE

Mr. Daģ ģar: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether after the termination of the considerations and consultations now taking place regarding the question of subsidence in the mining areas of Great Britain between the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the other Departments concerned, it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to deal with this problem.

Mr. T. Smith: As the hon. Member is aware, this question is being re-examined but my right hon. and gallant Friend cannot give any pledge in advance as to the introduction of legislation after the war.

Mr. Daģ ģar: On a point of Order. In order to relieve the Prime Minister of the obligation to answer this Question I put it to the Lord President of the Council. It was transferred to the Prime Minister and from him to the Department of my hon. Friend. May I have an answer to this Question as to whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation embodying the conclusions reached after this consideration and these consultations have come to an end?

Mr. Smith: As I assured my hon. Friend last week, this matter is being looked into departmentally. Until we get a report and conclusions no one can say whether legislation will follow or not.

Mr. Daģ ģar: Is my hon. Friend aware that this answer to the Question last week suggested that the matter was one for another Department? Now that it has been transferred to him may I ask him whether it is intended to introduce legislation?

Mr. Smith: I think my hon. Friend must have misunderstood the position. In discussing mining subsidence consultations must take place with other Departments and until these have taken place it cannot be decided whether legislation will be introduced.

Mr. Daģ ģar: I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Recruitinģ Officers, Wales

Major Sir Goronwy Owen: asked the Secretary of State for War how many recruiting and interviewing officers there are in Wales; and how many of these are conversant with the Welsh language.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The answer to the first part of the question is six recruiting officers and six interviewing officers. As far as I am aware one interviewing officer speaks Welsh.

Sir G. Owen: Does my hon. and learned Friend not think it is essential that these officers should be able to speak the Welsh language, in view of the fact that a large number of these recruits come from rural areas where the common language used in every day life is Welsh and where they have not the opportunities of practising the English language, and will he see that in future these officers must have a knowledge of the Welsh language?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there is certainly no objection in principle to the employment of Welsh-speaking officers. If he can give me information which indicates that difficulty has arisen owing to the lack of them I will certainly look into it.

Sir G. Owen: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that I have received complaints about the difficulty of these men who are called up in expressing themselves clearly before these examining officers, and is he aware that, as I understand it, there are plenty of Welsh-speaking officers?

South-East Asia Command (Canteen Services)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now give an assurance that an adequate N.A.A.F.I. organisation will operate under the South Eastern Asia Command.

Mr. A. Henderson: Arrangements are being made for an adequate canteen service for the troops in South-East Asia


Command which will be run partly by the Indian Canteen Stores Department and partly by N.A.A.F.I.

Miss Ward: When is it proposed that this shall go into operation?

Mr. Henderson: That depends upon a certain number of operational factors.

Miners' Institute (Requisitioninģ)

Mr. Foster: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that his Department has refused to de-requisition a certain miners' institute urgently required for miners' welfare purposes and that urgent representations have been made by the colliery company, the workmen and the Miners' Welfare Commission; and will he give instructions for the Home Guard company to be accommodated elsewhere in order that the needs of 2,000 mineworkers, together with optants and conscripts drafted to this area, might be met.

Mr. A. Henderson: This question has been very carefully considered with all those concerned and every endeavour has been made to find alternative acommodation for the Home Guard. I am advised that this could only be provided by new building and with the present shortage of labour this is, I regret, impossible. The military authorities will, however, allow the dance hall to be used by arrangement for social and welfare functions when it is not needed for military purposes. In the difficult circumstances of this case no other solution seems possible and I therefore very much hope that this compromise will enable both parties to carry out their functions.

Mr. Foster: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is in the neighbourhod a disused factory which could be adapted for this purpose, and does he not think that it is to be regretted that so many miners and optants and some of the Bevin boys who have been drafted to this district should be deprived of recreational facilities?

Mr. Henderson: I certainly appreciate the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers but I hope he will allow this compromise to work out in the hope that it will be successful. I might point out that not the whole building has been requisitioned. The bar and the billiards room and other public rooms, for example, have not been requisitioned.

Sir H. Williams: As there are about 80,000 coal miners not doing any work, could not they build a new place?

Mr. Tom Brown: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that within 200 yards of this place there is a disused mill, serving no purpose at all?

Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the last Question on the Paper, he will see that a new building has been erected in another area, for a different purpose.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Might I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the next series of Sittings?

The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for the next series of Sitting Days will be as follows:
First Sitting Day (2nd Allotted Supply Day)—Report stage of the Air, Army and Navy Estimates, and of outstanding Civil Supplementary Estimates. Committee and remaining stages of the India (Attachment of States) Bill [Lords] and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Police and Firemen (War Service) Bill.
Second Sitting Day (3rd Allotted Supply Day)—Report stage of the Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account. A Debate on Housing will take place. As a Debate on this subject in Supply will be limited, I suggest that we should take the Report stage of the Vote on Account formally, and then consider a Motion on Housing which the Government will table.
Third and Fourth Sitting Days—A Debate will take place on a Government Motion relating to the National Health Service.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I tell hon. Members now that we are in process of sending out invitations for the informal discussion about Services pay and allowances, and it is the intention of the Government that my right hon. Friend the Lord President, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself should meet the hon. Members concerned, and we hope that it will be possible to do so in the course of the next series of Sittings.

Mr. Greenwood: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House of the terms of the Housing Motion for the Debate on the Second Sitting Day?

Mr. Eden: I will put it on the Paper. I have not got it actually ready now, but the object in my mind is to allow the Debate to range widely on the legislation proposed, which is what hon. Members have asked for.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: In view of the undesirability of the House being committed in advance by the Government either on housing or on any other question, would the Leader of the House arrange for a Debate as soon as possible on the question of delegated legislation?

Mr. Eden: I cannot give an undertaking to do that before Easter. I do not know why my hon. and learned Friend should say "committed in advance" in respect of housing. I should have thought that it was plain to everybody that the course the Government suggested was to give every possible opportunity to express opinions before legislation is decided.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a speech was recently made which appeared to commit the Government to a certain extent?

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether, in view of the situation in the coalfields, the right hon. Gentleman will consider putting down the Vote for the Ministry of Fuel and Power and allow the House to discuss the matter?

Mr. Eden: I would have to consider that very carefully. It is not a subject upon which I would like to give an answer without careful consideration.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will, at the earliest opportunity, make a statement with regard to the Finland and Russian discussions which are now going on?

Mr. Eden: When we have information to give, we will gladly give it, but my hon. Friend will realise that that is a matter with which others are concerned besides ourselves.

Major C. S. Taylor: Last September, I think it was, we were promised a Debate as soon as possible on the subject of medals. Can the Leader of the House

say when we are to have that Debate; and is it necessary that we should debate the White Paper on National Health Services on the Third and Fourth Sitting days of the next series of Sittings? Cannot we have one of those days set aside for the medal Debate?

Mr. Eden: I think it is desirable we should debate this very important issue of the National Health Service as I have suggested. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend about the medal Debate. The situation is a complicated one, but I think I can assure the House that it will have a Debate during the series of Sittings after the next series of Sittings.

Earl Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend give any hope that there will be an opportunity for the Debate so persistently and consistently requested by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) and myself on the subject of Empire unity? Could he arrange for that Debate at a very early date?

Mr. Eden: I have that in mind and I hope to suggest a day before Easter.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he hopes to suggest a day. Has he not received representations for a two days' Debate, and will he consider, if it is not possible to have a two days' Debate before Easter, whether it might not be better to delay the Debate on the understanding that such a Debate takes place before the Empire Ministers' Conference?

Mr. Eden: I have just received such a suggestion. I am prepared to consider it because. Business is pretty congested between now and Easter, but I would not like to give an answer now.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give an indication when the promised Debate on tanks will take place? Last week the right hon. Gentleman said that he would arrange for time before Easter.

Mr. Eden: I still contemplate that it will take place before Easter.

Mr. Maxton: With regard to the next series of Sittings, I understand that the Debate on the Health Services is to be on


a Government Motion. Does that mean that there will be the likelihood, or at least the possibility, of a Division at the end of the proceedings on the Fourth Sitting Day? Will the proceedings be extended on that day, or will the Division take place at the appointed hour?

Mr. Eden: Certainly, any Division would take place at that time. I do not propose that there should be any extension of time on the Fourth Sitting Day

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to terminate the arrangement whereby it becomes an offence to disclose the days of the week on which we sit? Every week, by the order of the House, a document is printed which discloses the fact to the world, and as the Lobbies reveal it every day, the general public who wish to know are acquainted with the fact of our proceedings. Therefore, is it not a farce to speak of "Sitting Days" instead of naming the days of the week?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend dealt with that point some time ago, and I have nothing more to say.

Mr. De la Bère: Delegated commonsense.

ITALIAN FLEET (FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AND DISPOSAL)

The Prime Minister: I must trespass for a moment more upon the indulgence of the House. Questions have been put on the Paper for the next series of Sittings by two hon. Members—the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby)—in regard to the future of the Italian Fleet, and as this has a certain degree of urgency attached to it, I venture to make a statement on this occasion, with the permission of the House.
As President Roosevelt has said, the question of the future employment and disposal of the Italian Fleet has been the subject of some discussion. In particular, consideration has been given to the immediate reinforcement of the Soviet Navy either from Anglo-American or Italian resources. On these discussions, I have no statement to make other than to say, that at present no change is con-

templated in the arrangements with the Italian naval authorities under which Italian ships and their crews take part in the common struggle against the enemy in the theatres where they now operate. It may well be found that the general question of enemy or ex-enemy fleet disposal should best be left over till the end of the war against both Germany and Japan, when the entire position can be surveyed by the victorious Allies, and what is right and just can be done.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Could my right hon. Friend arrange that when announcements of this importance are made, they should, if possible, be made in a concerted manner rather than that one should read them as replies to a question put in a particular country, quite casually? Would it be possible to make them, in the manner in which my right hon. Friend has just made the announcement, as concerted statements from Washington and London simultaneously?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I certainly should not give any undertaking of that character, and I think the complete and close agreement which prevails, not only in principle, but on methods, between Great Britain and the United States is of the highest importance to all our affairs at the present time.

Earl Winterton: I think that the Prime Minister must have misunderstood what my right hon. Friend said. Does he not think that it is highly desirable—we all appreciate what he has done in that direction—that when statements of the greatest importance affecting the whole future of the world are made, they should, as far as possible, be made simultaneously by the heads of State in this country and the United States?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to lay down rules on these matters, which affect many countries all over the world, and which are governed by circumstances and conditions prevailing in them.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the method chosen on this occasion to make an announcement has been to the great disadvantage of the British public, because, following the statement made in America, all the newspapers in Great Britain were asked to make no comments, if possible, on the matter, although newspapers in every other country of the


world have been discussing it for the last six or seven days? We in this country have had no opportunity, because the Press have loyally carried out the request of the authorities concerned. If the statement had been made in a more concerted fashion we would not have been under this disadvantage.

The Prime Minister: I think it was very good of the Press to help in that way.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, but it leads to abuse, too.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 25th February.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

The Chairman: Before calling the first Amendment it may be perhaps for the convenience of the Committee and, I hope, may avoid prolonged discussions, if I say a word or two. I understand that suggestions have been made in the nature of a provisional time-table covering the further progress of the Education Bill through the Committee stage and that copies of that provisional time-table have been circulated. I think I ought to point out to the Committee that such a provisional time-table is not, of course, formally binding upon the Members of the Committee, but that it is hoped that hon. Members will, by common consent, do their best to co-operate in expediting further progress on the lines proposed in the time-table. That will, of course, involve a certain but I hope not too severe measure of self-denial on the part of hon. Members. As far as the Chair is concerned, we will in turn do what we can to co-operate with hon. Members and to assist in any direction.
I venture to make two suggestions to the Committee which may perhaps be helpful. The first is that the Minister may think it right to rise and make his statement at an earlier stage of the discussion upon any particular Amendment than, perhaps, would normally be the case so as to put the Committee in possession of the Government's views at the earliest possible moment. The second suggestion I venture to make is that it would help if hon. Members would do what they can to avoid making requests, for advice, information or explanations to the Chair during the course of debate. If hon. Members desire information or guidance as to procedure or the selection of Amendments I will endeavour to be accessible to Members outside the Chamber each day


before the Debate takes place. If they will then see me I shall be happy to give them what information I can. I hope these suggestions may commend themselves to the Committee and that I have made myself clear, and perhaps the Committee may be now willing to proceed with the Bill.

Earl Winterton: I think it is rather desirable to raise one point of Order which, I need hardly say, is in no way a reflection upon the Chair, because the course which you have adopted, Major Milner, is a novel one, though not, I think, any the less good for that. May I respectfully ask you to make it perfectly clear that in the course you are taking you are not in any way departing from procedure or suggesting in any way that any of the proposals you have made are in the slightest way binding, but that they are purely suggestions and that they will in no way affect any Rulings of the Chair?

The Chairman: The Noble Lord is perfectly correct and I may perhaps add that the power of selection of the Chair could not in any way be affected by any such provisional time-table as has been suggested.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I am doing this because, without a Motion in front of us, we cannot have discussion. I want to make it perfectly clear that the proposed time-table is not binding upon anybody, because some of us are not satisfied that it is desirable to make too rapid progress. The ordinary course is for Members of Parliament to obstruct Measures in the ways that are open to us until we have got our own way. There are certain things in connection with this Bill upon which I want my own way. I am very friendly to the Minister, but until certain things are settled this Bill ought not to make too rapid progress. There is no need to have too many Acts of Parliament. We have far too many as it is. We can live for a long time even if this Bill does not become law. It is not an urgent Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course it is.") Nothing will happen under it for two years or so, and it may be a very good thing that progress with this Bill should be rather slow.
I shall be pretty busy on other things to-day, so I shall not hamper progress very much, although perhaps I shall not be so busy later. Members of Parliament should not ran away with the idea that our best legislation is always that which is not closely examined, and it must not be thought that a few hon. Members sitting in a room upstairs can take away the rights of the rest of us. I am making this protest in the interests of legislation. Let hon. Members be clear that if some of us should wish to delay this Measure it is quite easy to do so. The enthusiasts for this Bill are very stupid, they speak on every Clause, while if I come in to make a two minute speech—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) is one of the worst Parliamentarians, because he can always be provoked into speech, and until he learns his lesson he will not discover how to get Bills through quickly.

Sir Percy Harris: I feel that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is a very mischievous speech. We have a National Government and this is a Bill which is intended, apparently, to represent the national sentiment for a necessary reform of education. We are not in any way bound by this time-table—that is quite clear and the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to say so—but obviously we are going to keep this Bill on the Floor of the House, and with other competing Measures to be dealt with and passed into law good will on all sides is necessary in dealing with this Measure, and I hope we shall try to carry out in the spirit, not in the letter, any reasonable suggestions that come from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tinker: The suggestion that the Minister should rise and state the Government's case upon an Amendment early on in the discussion of it would, to my mind, be rather against what I would term the rights of Members. When we move an Amendment we like to think that what we say will have some influence upon the Minister, but if he gets up immediately and says that he cannot accept it we feel that he has not heard the full case which can be put forward for its acceptance. After he has made his statement there will be more contention owing to his not having heard the full case. I hope he will pay attention to that point, because


when we bring forward an Amendment we do think there is some substance in it and like to have the case for it fully presented.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and would remind the Committee that the Act of 1902 was in Committee for 52 days on the Floor of this House. Why, then, should this Bill give the impression of being stampeded? It involves most momentous changes. I very much resent the remark made by the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) describing the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon as being mischievous. On the contrary, I think it is right and proper that we should examine extensive changes of this nature very carefully indeed, and I hope the discussion will not in any way be stultified.

Mr. Coleģate: I want to say, in opposition to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), that there is a very large number of Members on this side of the Committee who regard this Education Bill as urgent. It is urgent not merely on account of the actual administrative action that may be taken under it but it is urgent as an evidence to every class of the community that we intend to have an entirely remodelled and progressive system of education in this country at the earliest possible moment that war conditions permit.

Mr. Maxton: I do not think it was fair to describe as mischievous the speech to-day of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). Some of his activities here may be mischievous, but to-day his speech was that of a very good oppositionist, a speech which I myself would have been proud to make. I expect very soon to see an announcement in the newspapers that the hon. Member has withdrawn his support from the National Government. We might do business then. I think the point he made is a good one and that we ought to be careful over arrangements made behind the scenes. There were too many arrangements made behind the scenes before this Bill came to Parliament. If the Government really feel the urgency of getting the Measure through within a stipulated time they could impose a time-table upon us.

It has always been within the power of a Government to draw up a time-table for a big Measure that is contentious.

Mr. MacLaren: But there was an Opposition then

Mr. Maxton: Yes, it was imposed on the Opposition, it was the Opposition that felt the weight of the Guillotine Motion, but I do not see why the Government should be more tender about the feelings of their own supporters, who presumably have given them a mandate for this Measure, than they should be about the unofficial Opposition. I would rather have a Guillotine Motion imposed upon me, with an opportunity of opposing it, than have appeals made to my better nature, because that is my weakest spot. I would rather be compelled to accept a time-table than be "nobbled." I like the ordinary procedure of democracy; if I get voted down I accept the will of the majority, but this is neither one thing nor the other. I am not opposing this time-table, but I think we ought to be very careful about it.

Mr. Silkin: I would just like to say that if this time-table is not binding on the Committee then I do not know what it is. It certainly has not been arrived at by agreement. I do not know who has been consulted about it. I certainly have not been consulted, although I have a large number of Amendments on the Paper. A document was handed to me a few days ago purporting to be a time-table, to which somebody had agreed. I want to say emphatically, as far as the Amendments I have put down are concerned, that I shall take whatever time is appropriate and necessary. I shall not take longer, but I sincerely hope that we shall not be stampeded in our discussion of this Bill. I hope that we shall have the opportunity of proper discussion. I would rather put off the operation of this Bill for six months than have it rushed through the Committee without proper consideration. Therefore, while I hope nobody will deliberately waste time, I also hope that we shall not, as a result of having been handed this time-table, curtail any remarks we think it necessary to make.

Sir John Mellor: Is not the real difficulty in making progress with this Bill that all the important matters appear in the later Clauses; and should we not make better progress if we took the Bill


backwards? Putting that suggestion in rather more serious form, would it not be advantageous to take the financial Clauses at an earlier stage, rather than to wait for some weeks? Until we know how we are going to stand on the question of finance it is extraordinarily difficult to decide what is right in dealing with the earlier Clauses.

Earl Winterton: I have always endeavoured in the course of a long and inconspicuous career to throw oil on the troubled waters. I would like to associate myself with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) in some respects, and with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), whose Parliamentary career has been much more distinguished than mine, in others. I would like to say that while I differ from the hon. Member for South Croydon on the urgency of the Bill, I do agree with him—and I would say this to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite—that it does not necessarily mean that a Bill is a proper Bill if it goes through with very little discussion. Also, it does not necessarily follow that because there appears to be a certain amount of repetition of argument, the result will not in the long run improve the framework of the Bill. But I must say this in support of the hon. Member for South Croydon—and I was rather surprised to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the leader of one of the branches of the Liberal Party—that we are getting into rather a totalitarian frame of mind. Owing to a large number of Members having got into the House without election, any proposal which is made from the Front Bench is loudly cheered by my hon. Friends above the Gangway. I have often said that if the Prime Minister suddenly went mad and thought it would be a good thing to stand on his head, there is no doubt that a number of my hon. Friends above the Gangway would cheer him loudly. We must understand that we do not come to this House to accept the ipse dixit of this or any other Government.

Sir P. Harris: I am against the Guillotine and in favour of good will and co-operation.

Earl Winterton: I am sure that is so, but my right hon. Friend must not object, because he made an attack on my hon.

Friend the Member for South Croydon. I would now like to take up the point which was so admirably taken up by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. This, I suggest, is a serious matter which we need to discuss. What the hon. Member said is perfectly true. If after a most acrimonious Debate which lasted a fortnight this House accepted the Guillotine and then accepted certain principles, after a row on the time-table, the thing is then generally accepted. That is the proper procedure of the House. There is a second form of procedure which has been generally accepted, and that is friendly agreement between the Opposition and the Government. This, of course, is much easier when you have an Opposition, because the Leader of the Opposition can, to a large extent, bind his party. This is in no way a reflection on your Ruling, Major Milner. What is not completely in accord with precedent is for a Chairman to suggest that course of action to the Committee. An hon. Member who is not prepared to accept the suggestion of the Chair, might appear to be doing something discourteous, and I would like to say that none of us who are not privy to this arrangement can be bound by it. I would like to support the chairman and the—

Mr. Cove: I would like to know on what basis we are carrying on this discussion. Is there anything concrete before the Committee? I understood that it was merely a suggestion from the Chair.

Earl Winterton: I thought the hon. Member was going to ask me a question. Instead of that he has made a statement. I am sorry to be involved in a domestic dispute in the Labour Party.

Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. Are we in Order in discussing the method of the Guillotine?

The Chairman: I understood there was a desire to discuss this matter and I accepted the Motion to report Progress. The Noble Lord's remarks appear to me to be in Order.

Earl Winterton: I was only saying that I wished to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member behind me. Both he and I would like to see this Bill go through, but we are by no


means bound by any arrangement. What has been shown is that it would be better to return to the old Rule.

Mr. Lipson: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but THE CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Parker: I think there are a great many people in this Committee who are not Opposition-minded and who would like to see this Bill proceeded with. A great many Members take the view that the country is right in expecting the Government and the House to take action and to produce results in regard to post-war planning and proposals generally for reconstruction after the war. The Members of this House feel that the suggestion made by the Chair and by the Government for an organized time-table is a reasonable thing, and I expect the majority of my hon. Friends would say that, if we cannot make more rapid progress than has been made up to now, they would support the Government in seeing that a more rapid procedure is adopted. But I hope and trust we shall be able to operate this programme and that we shall produce results which will justify Parliament and ourselves to the country by showing that we can take action and not merely talk.

Mr. R. Morģan: I wish to intervene only for a few moments. I know the difficulties of what has happened in the past, but I want to know what is going to happen to-day. Do I understand that we are going through the Amendments as tabulated on the Paper or, if not, is it to be indicated at some later time to-day, which Amendments will be taken?

The Chairman: The position to-day is the same as on any other day. I have selected Amendments and if the hon. Member will be good enough to see me at the Table to-day and on any other day outside the Chamber perhaps it will save time in the future.

Mr. A. Bevan: I do not propose to keep the Committee long, because I think we ought to get on with the Bill, but I suggest that this discussion will facilitate the later passage of the Bill. One of our main difficulties in this matter is that

certain groups of people and certain interests concerned have fashioned this Bill—not merely this time-table but the Bill itself—and these groups are represented in this Committee. As Members of this House they want to impose upon us decisions reached outside the House. That is the difficulty and my hon. Friend reminded me of that difficulty in his speech. Many of the people in this Committee who are now discussing this Bill are its architects. I am not saying that individual Members are its architects, but they are associated with bodies whose proposals are embodied in the Bill. They want to rush through Parliament the decisions to which they have come. I think hon. Members will agree that this is a true description of our situation at the moment. What happens? It happens that these compromises which have been reached outside the House are offensive to Members of this House. We want to examine them.
I would suggest that this is just the sort of Bill which could not be sent upstairs even if we had Standing Committees. It is too important. We should have to take this Education Bill on the Floor, though subordinate Bills could be sent upstairs. I hope hon. Members will not let themselves be rushed. That really would be an appalling situation. The Press look upon these things quantitively and they say we have only crawled through the first Subsection of Clause 1, page 2. We cannot expect people, having regard to the crowded space of the newspapers to-day, to make intelligent comments on Parliamentary procedure, and I am bound to ask the Committee not to consider too seriously the comments made about us in the Press because I have known the meticulous examination of a particular Clause in Committee to affect millions of people outside. Therefore, I hope that we will get on with the discussion of this Bill and not be stampeded by comments made here or outside.

Sir Irving Albery: Are the Committee right in understanding that the selection of Amendments will not be curtailed under the proposals of the timetable, as compared with what it would be under the ordinary procedure?

The Chairman: That is the case. My mind is in no way influenced by the fact that any suggestions have been made.

Mr. Stokes: It does seem to me on this occasion that the Minister has done the only thing possible. He has collected together representatives of various parties to try to get them to agree on some sort of programme. I can tell the Committee that no undertaking has been given by anybody. It is only a means by which the Minister hopes to achieve his object, but he knows that some people will object very strongly to some of the Clauses, and, unless we can get an accommodation, the Debate is likely to be prolonged. It seems reasonable, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Maxton: Do I understand the hon. Member's statement to mean that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has got an agreement by which his Clauses are to be debated at length, and mine will be closed down?

Mr. Stokes: I assure my hon. Friend that I have no agreement of any kind whatever.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): It might be thought discourteous if the Government took no part in this discussion. The Leader of the House, myself and the Government have noted the observations of hon. Members, and it has been very valuable to have this short Debate at the opening of business. It is quite clear that this time-table simply consists of suggestions to which we can work. Let us, then, work to it as far as we can. The Government have profited by the Debate we have had. The point has been made that, in certain quarters outside, there is an idea that we have not made enough progress. That is not very valuable. This Bill must pass with the general agreement and help of this Committee, and in that way I feel we shall make it a better Bill.

Sir William Davison: May I reply to what was intended to be the taunt of the Noble Lord against those of us who sit on these Benches? He said that if the Prime Minister came into the House and announced that he would stand on his head, there are Members who would cheer him. May I remind the noble Lord of what was said by a previous Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Disraeli, when appealing to the electors of High Wycombe? When asked what his qualifications were he replied, "I stand on my

head," and he was loudly cheered and returned by a large majority.

Sir H. Williams: As the Motion has achieved its purpose, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it. May I say that, if there has been any delay in the programme, it has been due to the verbosity of the educational enthusiasts in this Committee. All the obstruction has come from supporters of the Bill.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 15.—(Transfer of county and auxiliary schools to new sites, and substitution of new auxiliary schools for old ones.)

Sir Adam Maitland: I beg to move in page 13, line 24, at the end, to insert:
Provided that an order to transfer a school to a new site shall not be made until after public notice of the proposed transfer has been given in the prescribed manner and the Minister has given consideration to any objections thereto which may be submitted to him by the council of any county district or managers or governors of any auxiliary school affected by the proposal or by any local education authority concerned within three months after the first publication of the notice.
In moving this Amendment, I hope that the remedy it proposes will not be regarded as a reason for the summary rejection of the plan. On the contrary, it might be regarded as reasonable enough for its prompt acceptance. It violates no principle, but seems to be a matter of common sense. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide in cases of transfers of schools to new sites that the local education authority and any county district affected shall be able to make such representations as they think fit. I will not go into detail. I have stated the purpose of the Amendment, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Clause 15 deals with two groups of schools—those which are transferred from one site to another because the site is inadequate, or because the population may have been moved, and those schools which are substituted for others where one or two schools have found that the population moved away so far that it is necessary to establish a new school and deal with the children in the new school. The first group of schools, to which this Amendment relates, covers such cases as I


imagine all of us know, of schools, perhaps 70, 80 or 100 years old, adjoining a churchyard with very often no possibility of the site being expanded. In these cases the buildings make the lighting problem very difficult, and it is exceedingly desirable that, where we are able to have an adequate site or buildings, such a school should be transferred to some other place within reasonable distance of its present site. This is the kind of case which, in the main, will be dealt with by the first Sub-section, to which this Amendment refers. It really does not appear necessary that, in such a case, the whole paraphernalia of serving notices should be gone through, because it involves very considerable delay. We were criticised, on Clause 12, because of requiring notices in certain cases. I hope it will be felt that it is not necessary to give notice in the kind of case to which I have alluded. There is another kind of case where, in existing county districts, a new housing estate has altered the centre of gravity of the population of the parish, and made it desirable that a school formerly serving, perhaps, the older part of the town which has ceased to be residential, should be moved nearer to the housing estate.
I can give the Committee, as an illustration, the story of what happened in the first school to which I went. It was a very old Church school. It had originally been a stable, in which a famous racehorse was stabled in the 18th century. When the building was no longer fit for housing bloodstock, it was turned into an infants' school.

Mr. W. J. Brown: True blood stock.

Mr. Ede: Yes, true bloodstock. The building was on a very restricted site; it was insanitary and badly lighted. In time, the Church authorities were unable to maintain it, and it became a council school. A new housing estate was erected about half a mile away, and the result was that the major part of the children attending the school went to live on this housing estate. A site existed near the housing estate, and it was decided to transfer the school from its existing site to that other one. That exemplifies the things which may cause transfer under Clause 15 (1), but I venture to suggest that it is not the kind of case in which we want to go through the procedure of notices. I hope that, if we give an as-

surance that the Minister is to be satisfied that it is expedient to transfer these schools and that it is the kind of case with which he intends to deal, and that, hi anything involving wider transfers, involving new districts and populations, Sub-section (2) will be used, the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am really disappointed with the reply, because the Clause, as drafted, is much too wide. We all agree that there are instances of old schools, either near a churchyard or in the middle of a village, where it is quite impossible to adapt the schools to modern requirements, and therefore a new school will have to be built to meet the needs of the neighbourhood. But this deals with transfers. There ought to be some limitation on that, quite clearly, and it is not enough to leave it to the Minister to decide whether it is expedient or not. We want to ensure that advantage will not be taken of this to impose upon a neighbourhood the same kind of atmosphere, to use a general term, that applied to the old school. What really ought to happen is that an old school should come down completely and a new school should be provided, which would be, of course, a county school. I suggest that certain limitations are necessary here.
With regard to the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, suppose there is a change of population. Suppose you have a case in which there is a considerable amount of town and country planning provided for in the proposals. Is that new population to be saddled with an old school put on a new site? The new population ought to have a new school divorced from anything in the past. Why should a new population coming in be saddled with what took place 100 years before? The Amendment down in my name not having been called, may I say that the objections we have to the Clause as framed would be met by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Before we agree to transfers, and say that these schools shall be continued in new schools or buildings, at least, the education authority ought to be consulted and its views obtained. They may want to say that a school shall be a new school, but they may be over-ridden by the right hon. Gentleman's successor. I think it is generally accepted that old schools should


now be transferred to new ones, set up at the public expense. We want these safeguards, and I must express my deep disappointment that my Amendment has not been selected.

Sir A. Maitland: I am sorry the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendment. The reasons he gave are not at all convincing. I am not concerned with the argument about giving notice in the case which I put forward. We are asking that where proposed transfers are to be made, the Minister should have the advantage of consultations with those people in any district who are able to advise him. I am very much obliged for the suggestion of my hon. Friend, but, of course, he knows perfectly well that, when this Bill has passed through the House and is on the Statute Book, an assurance of that kind is worth nothing whatever. If it is really useful that the local education people should be consulted before a school is transferred to another site, I think the question of time is of no particular or material moment, and I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. The question of the bureaucracy of Whitehall is involved. Where possible, I think it is useful that we should have the wholehearted co-operation of the people in the different localities, and I commend the Amendment in that regard as well as in others.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would like to support the view expressed by my hon. Friend opposite. This matter is regarded as of real consequence by local education authorities, and it raises the whole question of the extent to which local consultation will take place in regard to measures of this kind, particularly in the case of the transferred school. If, as I said the other day, the Minister were to be in charge of education perpetually, I do not think the question would arise, but new Governments come into existence, and new authorities come into existence in White-hall, and we would certainly like to feel that, before action is taken by the Minister, there should be the fullest consultation with local people in the service. I am sure the Minister himself would agree to the importance of local consultations on matters of this kind. He knows very well that when large new building operations take place, the case of the trans-

ferred school may be of great importance locally, and I suggest that he might give way to that extent and accept the view that, before taking drastic action, he will consult the local people.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I hope that the Minister will be willing to reconsider his decision in view of what has been said on both sides of the Committee. The delay of three months is a matter of regret but it is a very small thing in the life of the school, and it is far more important that a decision shall be taken which is really receiving co-operation from the parents and children especially concerned. This Amendment gives an opportunity for the local authority, and all concerned, to make any representations they may desire before a decision of such importance is made. Therefore, I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Ede: May I say that my right hon. Friend and I, having listened to the discussion, recognise there is a desire on the part of hon. Members that these transfers shall not be made, and the old school continued, against the wishes of the locality? However, I do not disguise from myself the fact that the tradition of the old school is very often most valuable, and it is the last thing, I am sure, that the Committee would desire to lose. It is not desired, I am sure, that traditions which have been built up should, of necessity, be severed, because in the general interests of education a school has been moved from one site to another a few hundred yards away. We recognise, however, that the Committee desire that this matter shall be reconsidered, and we will undertake to examine it further to see if there is any way in which we can meet the legitimate desire of the Committee before the next stage of the Bill.

Sir A. Maitland: May I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance, and, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I beg to move, in page 13, line 33, after "maintained," to insert:
and that the school proposed to be maintained will at the time of substitution provide education for substantially the pupils for whom education was provided at the school or schools proposed to be discontinued.


In view of the acceptance by the Government of the arguments put forward in support of the previous Amendment, and the promise that in the light of those arguments the matters touched upon in Subsection I will be reconsidered, I hope that this Amendment to Sub-section (2) will automatically follow. Although, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said, Subsection (1) was wide, yet the Committee will notice that in Sub-section (1) the Chancellor is limited to cases either of the impossibility of expansion, or of the movement of population or of action under the Town and Country Planning Act. In other words, Sub-section (1) does not operate unless one of those three conditions is satisfied, and we are dealing with what is a bona-fide transfer of a school. But in Sub-section (2) we are dealing not with transfers of schools at all. What does Sub-section (2) provide? It starts off with a reference to Sub-section (2) of Clause 12. I may remind the Committee that that is a Sub-section which provides for those who intend to establish an auxiliary school—they may not be concerned necessarily with one specific school—or for persons whom they represent. In other words, you can have a denominational body making proposals under Subsection (2) and, as it stands now, that body can apply to have a new auxiliary school, as a right, by giving up another auxiliary school, or another two auxiliary schools, anywhere at all. I direct the attention of the Committee to the exact words of the Sub-section:
Where any proposals submitted to the Minister under Sub-section (2) of Section twelve of this Act include a claim that the school thereby proposed to be maintained by the local education authority as an auxiliary school should be maintained by them in substitution for another school at the time being maintained by a local education authority.
Note that it does not say "the" local education authority. It is not a case of an application being made for an auxiliary school to be transferred from one place within the local education authority's area. This body can come with its application and say "Here is a school now maintained as an auxiliary school by a local authority anywhere. We now desire to set up an auxiliary school here, in another area altogether, and we will give up one for the benefit of getting the other." In other words, a denomination

can give up a school in Hoxton and apply for one in Hammersmith. It can give up one in Plymouth, and throw in as a make-weight another little one from the country, and ask for an auxiliary school to be set up in Norwich. That is possible under the terms of this Sub-section. Indeed one is familiar with procedure of this kind in another branch of the law. Members of the Committee who are familiar with the licensing laws of this country will know that those who own licensed premises can go before the licensing justice and apply to have a licence transferred. They even sometimes go so far as to surrender two licences in order to get a good one elsewhere. It is indeed remarkable that bodies such as the Anglican Church should come to Parliament—I suppose this is in at their request—and ask that, in respect of their auxiliary schools, they shall be put in the same position as the "pubs" for this is what the Sub-section does, if it is not amended.
The Amendment which I move seeks to provide that this bargaining, this substitution—it is not transfer—should be limited to cases where the substitution is for the benefit substantially of the school population concerned and that the new school proposed to be maintained should, at the time of substitution, provide education for a substantial number of the pupils for whom education was provided at the school or schools proposed to be discontinued. That is a very reasonable limitation. The Committee, I hope, will be convinced that the extensive width of this Sub-section cannot possibly be justified. There must be some limitation. It maybe that my hon. Friend will suggest some other method; I shall not quarrel about its exact form, but some limitation upon, the system set up in this Sub-section is clearly called for.

Professor Gruffydd: I wish to support this Amendment in a very few words. There happens to be in the Education Act of 1870 a definition of the word "school," and I suppose that definition is still recognised in this country. First comes the definition of a school house, which is that it includes all the premises and playground in which the school meets. The school itself, is quite clearly not the building but the entity of the teachers and the pupils who meet in that particular building.

Mr. Coleģate: Is not that definition now replaced by the definition in the new Bill?

Professor Gruffydd: I think that does not affect the argument because, however the term "school" may be defined in the new Bill, this will be the definition that will always obtain among educationalists—that the school is something distinct from the school house. It seems to me justifiable that any body of men, whatever interests they have, should enjoy the right to transfer premises which were recognised previously by the Government as a school house to a place either near to or at some distance away from where they were, but not to build new premises for a different kind of school from what they had before.
I am not going to say any more about this except that a demand of that kind is perfectly legitimate, but I do not think it is legitimate for a denomination, which has a large population of its own people in one part of the town, when it goes to another part—say to a building estate where there is no population belonging to its denomination or, at least a very small one—to have the right to say "Well, we are going to transfer our school." They must first prove quite clearly not only that they want to transfer the schools but that the children themselves—the corpus, the body of the schoolchildren—has been transferred.

Mr. Ede: I do not think there is very much between the Government and the hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment. We do accept the proposition that the substitute schools shall be the brotherhood of children and teachers, rather than the buildings. But may I point out one difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment in the form in which it is put. It may be that if we have a slum clearance, which takes the children from one, or two, or three schools, and moves them out to a district, there may be other children there who would legitimately desire to attend the same type of school.
I am sure Members would not desire that we should erect two schools, one to deal with the re-housed population connected with the two old schools, and another one to deal with such other people as we might want to bring in. We deal with this last point in Clause 96, the grant Clause. In such a case, let us

assume that it was proved, with regard to the first two schools, that there were 150 children from each who had gone out—that would give us a total of 300 from the substituted schools—and that there were 200 other children who ought legitimately to be accommodated in a school. The school would be for 500, but the Minister would only pay grant in respect of the 300 who had been housed in the schools for which substitution was made. In that way I think we should be able to deal with the substituted schools and the part of the school which is, in effect, a new school. If hon. Members will examine the powers we take under Clause 96, they will find that we shall be able to limit the use of this particular machinery to the children who actually come from the substituted schools. I admit the matter is rather complicated but if, when hon. Members come to examine Clause 96, they come to the conclusion that the wording is not sufficiently strict to carry out what they and we desire, we shall be prepared to see whether we can make the position absolutely safe.
We do desire that the brotherhood of the school—and I prefer to use the word "brotherhood," rather than the Latin word which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd)—shall continue. One of the things which is most necessary in these new estates is to have some institution around which a new population can centre and bring into that area a feeling of corporate life. A school is often one of the best means of insuring that that can be done. On the assurance I have given—that if Clause 96 does not deal effectively with this matter, we will examine it further—I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. C. Davies: I think we are all agreed in spirit. May I make a suggestion? The Minister is to consider the first Amendment which was proposed to-day. Will he also consider whether some part of this Amendment could also be reintroduced on the Report stage? Will he give due weight to the word "substantial," which, I think, meets the arguments which have been put forward?

Mr. Ede: We will consider the whole of the discussion which has taken place so far and any arguments which may be addressed to us between now and the time when we get to Clause 96.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I would like to express my gratitude to the Minister for meeting us in this way. I am sure that we shall be able to arrive at complete agreement as to the form of words which will secure the objective which his Department, and those who have supported this Amendment, wish to secure. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Constitution of managers and governors and conduct of county schools and auxiliary schools.)

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 14, line 6, to leave out from the second "the," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
body of managers or governors of the school is in this Act referred to as the school council and the instrument providing for the constitution of the school council is in this Act referred to as the instrument of council.
If this Amendment is accepted it will mean a whole series of Amendments of this character, but if it is rejected there will be a wholesale slaughter of the innocents. All the others will have to go. I think it would have been wiser if I had merely put down this Amendment and held the rest in store; at any rate, it would have saved paper, which is important at a time like this. It is quite obvious that a simplified type of machinery will be used for primary schools and that another type will be used for secondary and grammar schools. I can see no reason why there should not be the same kind of managing, directing or advising body in connection with all the schools. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has just said that he liked the term, "brotherhood of the schools," better than the Latin phrase which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). That term is attractive; the brotherhood of a school is not merely a question of teachers and scholars. It embraces all those associated with the responsibility for developing schools and education from the top to the bottom. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary must be part of that brotherhood of the schools.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary: Where do governors come in, in association with that brotherhood? There are two types of governors, both of them bad. There is the "old school tie" type

of governor, a "superior" person, someone who would not take part in the brotherhood of man but in the governing of less fortunate people. Such governors are associated with schools which are trying to produce a dominant section of society. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Oh, yes. Moreover, many people who have been to schools where these governors reigned are "snooty" persons. Other people have to step off the sidewalks to let them pass. Such schools have produced that impudent arrogance which has been so much associated with the "old school tie." We have had to pay a terrible price for such governors and the schools where they have played their part. There is also the other type of governor—the man who rules the children who have misbehaved themselves and have been caught. Fortunately, I was never caught.

Mr. Muff: I would like to correct the hon. Member. They are called "headmasters" now. There are no governors at approved schools.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not talking about approved schools; I am talking about industrial schools, Borstal Institutions and the like, where there is control by a governor. The governor has power of oppression and suppression. He is not interested in developing a spirit of unity and brotherhood. In the new school system the term "manager" will apply to the primary school, which caters for children up to II years of age. After that age the schools become "governor" schools. Therefore, we shall not only have the "old school tie" type of school but some of the working-class schools will also have governors. The tendency will be, in the superior type of school, for the governor to be an "old school tie" person and in working-class schools for the governor to be of an institutional type. I ask that there should be brotherhood from the top to the bottom, and that the Minister will do away with governors and institute the fullest measure of co-operation for all schools by getting recognised councils to govern them.

Mr. Ede: I think it might help the Committee if I give an indication of what the nomenclature adopted in this Bill means, and how it differs in the existing circumstances of the schools. At the moment in England and Wales we have a parallel system of education for children over 11.


There are certain municipal and endowed schools which have governing bodies, and to which about 10 per cent. of the children under 11 manage to go when they reach that age. Parallel with that is the new senior school, or the old full-age range school, which is an elementary school and has a body of managers. Undoubtedly, at the moment, in the England and Welsh system of education, the difference between manager and governor is in relation to the social and educational status of the school. One child of 13 will be in a school controlled by governors and another of the same age will be in a school controlled by managers.
We propose that in future children over 11 shall be in schools the managing body of which will be called a body of governors. That is to say, it will be the same form of body as is now used for the municipal secondary school and the endowed secondary school. I believe also that the bodies that manage some of the public schools, with which, I regret to say, I am not very well acquainted, also call themselves governors, and they may possess all the vices the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) accuses them of. I do not know them and I am unable to speak either in their defence or in further attack upon them. But the term "governor" in English education has not the connotation that the hon. Member gives it. I believe that all the local education authorities of the country, no matter what their composition, regard a body of governors as being a responsible set of people who have placed upon them certain very heavy educational responsibilities. They will have in future a very heavy duty placed upon them in arranging that the curriculum of their schools shall be far wider in some cases than it has been hitherto, and they will have very heavy duties put on them with regard to helping the young people attending their schools to get into suitable employment when they leave.
The machinery that now exists in local government for creating governing bodies is the kind of machinery which it is necessary to provide for the new and wider secondary schools of the future. But, with regard to the primary school, I do not think they want the terrific machinery that the English governing body really is. When one thinks of the way it is usually constituted,

there are so many people appointed by the local education authority, so many by the county district council served by the school, a representative of one of the universities that serves the neighbourhood, and other people who are brought in representing other interests of that kind. I think such a body will be more than ever necessary in the future, but I cannot think you want the same terrific machinery to deal with the problem of the child under 11, and I think the term "body of managers" for the primary school is a very appropriate term, and "body of governors" for those schools over 11 represents a very appropriate term for them.
We are here only dealing with names, and the term "governors," in spite of the connotation that it may have to the hon. Member's mind, is not the connotation which it generally beats in England and Wales. These are regarded as bodies on which people of all classes are exceedingly willing to serve, they regard service on them as an honour, and they devote their energies to securing the best possible education for the boys and girls who attend the schools. My right hon. Friend does not feel that this departure from well-established nomenclature is justified by anything that exists in the present education service, and we believe it will carry in to the new service a very valuable tradition from the old.

Mr. S. O. Davies: In county boroughs the committee that is responsible for the administration of our secondary and even our county schools is a subcommittee of the education committee. With one or two exceptions they are the elected representatives of the people. Does by hon. Friend anticipate the changing of that system, which has worked very admirably indeed?

Mr. Ede: I think I should be out of Order if I attempted to give a full answer on this Amendment, but the matter will be raised on subsequent Amendments, and no doubt my right hon. Friend will be prepared to deal with the subject.

Mr. Pritt: I think it is useful to have had the exposition my hon. Friend has given us but in one or two of his phrases he has really established the case for the Amendment. If I understand the matter properly, what he has told us about the lack of any real


necessity for establishing the terrific machinery of what the Bill proposes to call "governors" for schools for which a body of managers is sufficient, is irrelevant. As he has said, the Amendment deals with words only. We agree that he should have his machinery. We do not in any way challenge the sort of machinery that he wants for his governors or managers. We want nothing whatever but suitable names. We say that the phrase "governors" carries a tinge of snobbery and superiority and that that is undesirable. The Parliamentary Secretary as good as said so as well. He admitted that it carries a social tinge, but proceeded to describe it as well established phraseology from which he does not want to depart. In other words, for reasons which are good to him if we rule out sentiment, memory and association, he wants to keep the two sets of words because he thinks they are appropriate at the moment, but he says they have a social tinge. It is the well established social tinge that we want to get rid of. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Only the tinge?"] There are other things that we want to get rid of but only the tinge is relevant on this Amendment. If he will keep his machinery and get rid of the name, which would be appropriate if it did not have a bad connotation, we shall be very happy. Suppose we took the word "snob" and wanted to use it in relation to some of the scholars, the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to explain that "snob" really means a working-man, and that is what it originally meant.

Mr. Pickthorn: A shoe maker.

Mr. Pritt: I am much obliged. On anything that is really old, the hon. Member is an authority. It might obviously be undesirable to use the term here, because it has obtained a different meaning. The word "governors" has an undesirable connotation, and therefore we ask that the Amendment should be accepted.

Professor Gruffydd: I think the mover of the Amendment has ensured that we should be quite clear in our minds—at least that is my sentiment after listening to him—that what he wants is that there should be a good deal more snobbery in the future in the schools, and he is

going to get it in this way. There will still be public schools with governors, and they will be called governors. No one can stop them being called governors. The hon. Member's sons and mine will go to these new schools and they will be asked, "To what school did you go? Did you go to a Gallacher school with a council, or to a public school with governors?" They will say, "We went to a council school," and they will have the taint of inferiority always attached to them. The word "snobbery" can have no meaning here at all, as applied to the universal population. Every one must go either to a modern, a technical or a grammar, all of them a secondary type of school and each of them, without any distinction, will have governors of some kind. How can you have snobbery here? Snobbery means a feeling of your own superiority over your fellows, or a mean exploitation of the superiority of others.

Mr. Gallacher: It has been said that, no matter what the circumstances may be, a Liberal never changes his policy. Liberals for generations served up this argument. All you want to do to put an end to snobbery is to send more Liberals to the House of Lords, and every new batch of Liberals that went to the House of Lords—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): If the hon. Member proposes to discuss the number of Liberals in the House of Lords, I shall be obliged to rule it out of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: Now the hon. Member says we all agree that it is very undesirable to have public schools where there are governors. The way to cure it is to make them all undesirable. If they are all undesirable, who will be the snobs? Is the hon. Member incapable of understanding that some boys and girls are more subject to the disease than others? They will discover that they are part of the governing class and they will get all the snobbery, and the workers' children will be corrupted. I do not want to see that. I want to see the best possible education for every one without anything of this character in it. Did the Parliamentary Secretary ever think of saying, "A city council is a very important body, with very great responsibility, therefore we must call the city council governors"?
In the machinery of responsibility it does not make any difference whether a body is a city council or an urban council. It is nonsense, because there is a wider range of machinery for the secondary and advanced school that it should have a different nomenclature from that of primary schools. Such distinctions have no real value and they are therefore bad. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) tried to catch the Chairman's eye just now, and I hope he will get up and tell us whether there is any advantage to the education of the children, in having governors for one type of school and managers for another.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think that I should inform hon. Gentlemen opposite of the meaning of the word "snob." Snobbery consists in paying excessive attention to conventional words and to titles, and the Committee seem to me to have paid a great deal of attention to this particular conventional title.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Jewson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, after "authority," to insert "after such order has been approved by the Minister."
The instrument of management or government is a matter of first-class importance. The Parliamentary Secretary has referred more than once to-day to the importance of the tradition of the school and the fact that the building is not the school. Those of us who happen to belong to churches whose buildings have been destroyed have had brought home to us in the last few years that the building is not the church. This is just as true of a school. Whether it is an old tradition that has to be preserved or a new one that has to be set up, the instrument of management or government is of the greatest importance. That being so, all schools should have the benefit of the advice and consideration of the Minister.

The Deputy-Chairman: The point raised by this Amendment is also raised by the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke)—in line 22, after "authority," insert: "and approved by the Minister"—and that in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd)—in line 25, leave out

from "government" to "by" in line 26. The three Amendments can, therefore, be discussed together.

Sir Georģe Schuster: I wish to support the Amendment. I should like to link it up, although I must not get on to the general importance of this Clause, with what appears to me to be the main significance of this question. The whole of the Clause and the position of managers or governors, whatever we like to call them, in relation to the public authorities, whether local education authorities or the Board, represent one of the most important points in the Bill. My right hon. Friend, in his first speech on the White Paper, used a phrase which gave me a great deal of pleasure when he said that he wished to do everything to avoid the fear that a dull uniformity would creep over our school system. For that reason, it is of the greatest importance that the managers or governors of a school should be a body which can play a role of its own and have its own character. The Amendment suggests that the Minister's approval should be obtained in certain cases. I can, perhaps, support an Amendment of this kind with a good conscience, and not risk being accused of wishing to push local authorities out of the picture, because I was instrumental, on an earlier Clause, in getting an Amendment accepted to bring the local authorities in with the Minister, when the Minister had the power alone. I would like to see no distinction in connection with any of these bodies. Whether they are managers or governors, or whether we are dealing with instruments of government or rules of management, I would like to see both the local education authority and the Minister concerned in every case. That would be valuable. We want to have the Minister interested in the development of this relationship between individual schools and our national system. We want to have local interest brought into it, and, above all, we want to have the supervision of Parliament to see how this new system develops.

Mr. Cove: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. I am very jealous, and sometimes rather apprehensive, about one of the effects of the Bill in relation to the powers of the Minister and the lessening of the power and privileges of the local authority. There is some apprehension that the powers, privi-


leges and prestige of the local authority are being adversely affected under the Bill. I want to say emphatically, with regard to county schools which are fully maintained out of public funds, that the local authority ought to be the final judge. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not, in the interests of the prestige and power of local authorities, accept the Amendment.

Mr. Denman: You indicated, Mr. Williams, that the Amendment to line 22 would be taken with this one. The subject matter is not identical, because the Amendment that has been moved deals with the instrument of management and the instrument of government, that is, the instrument laying down the constitution. The Amendment to line 22 deals with the rules of management, which are a different matter. Why is there a differentiation, in paragraphs (a) and (b) between the rules of management of primary schools, and the articles of government for secondary schools? In the case of the primary school the order is made by the local education authority alone. In the case of the secondary school the order is made by the local education authority and approved by the Minister. We ask that the approval of the Minister should apply to the primary school, as to the secondary school. I imagine that the purpose of the President is to raise rather than diminish the status of the managers. If the order is left merely to the local education authority, there is no guarantee that the authority will not diminish the status of the managers in the rules which it lays down.

Professor Gruffydd: The Clause gives a great advantage to the auxiliary schools. Those schools will, rightly, get an instrument of government approved by the Minister, but in the case of the county schools the instrument will not be approved by the Minister but will be taken as read whatever order is made. I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). He forgets that it is possible for a local education authority to consist of men, not one of wham has any concern with education, that is to say, they are not elected on the educational issue but on general issues.

Mr. Hutchinson: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that all education committees have co-opted members who

are co-opted because of their knowledge of education.

Professor Gruffydd: I know that they have the power of co-option, but I also know that in some parts they co-opt each other, and when there is a vacancy they may well take in men who know nothing about education. I will give an example. When the Council of the University College of Cardiff was asked to supply a person to be co-opted on a certain authority in South Wales, they appointed for many years a man who was a county councillor and had nothing whatever to do with the college as an educational institution. Some local education authorities are quite incapable of drawing up this instrument.

Mr. Cove: My hon. Friend says that he differs from me. Is he not now casting a slur on representative local government?

The Deputy-Chairman: This question of slurs had better be dropped.

Professor Gruffydd: I do not want to cast any slur on them, but members of local education authorities would agree with me, if I asked them, that, on the whole, they are not elected on educational issues but on general issues. It often happens that there are authorities on which there are no members who are capable of drawing up an instrument of government. They ought, therefore, to be allowed to get the best advice, and that advice will come from the Minister.

Mr. Butler: I suggest that I might possibly give the Committee a little guidance as to the method by which we might get this topic considered. We have an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) to an Amendment to line 22. I was proposing to say a few words on those Amendments first, but to reserve a general statement of the position on Clause 16 to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), in line 25, a little further down the page. If that would be convenient, it would perhaps be best if he would move his Amendment later, and if I were to follow it, after some speeches had been made, with a statement of the Government's attitude on the operation of the


Clause as a whole. If that course were adopted, I would be able to give some guidance as to the Government's general attitude, but, to keep myself in Order, I must now address myself to the actual Amendment before us.
I do not feel that, on the Amendment, it would be right to make a general statement on the operation of the Clause, because the Government could not accept the Amendment, very largely for the reasons which have been put in the Debate hitherto, and partly because the Amendment applies to both primary and secondary schools. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall can quite have realised that to insert the Amendment at this stage would mean that the actual management instrument for the primary school would have to come, in every case, before the Minister, which would be a quite intolerable position and a reversal of the existing practice. I do not think it is necessary to take out of the purview of local authorities the setting up of the ordinary governance of primary schools throughout the country. I do not think, if the hon. Gentleman would listen to what I may say later to-day, that he would wish to press the Amendment.
I would like to accept the general spirit of his words, however, that the object of the Clause as a whole is to preserve a proper life for the school, but it is equally much the object of the Government to preserve the proper position of those who have the responsibility for education in their own areas. It is in order to meet those two sides of the question that we have drafted the Clause in the way we have. Having said that the Government, for the reasons I have given and, in addition, for the reason that these are county schools, cannot accept the Amendment, I should say a word about the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Central Leeds, not discussing the Amendment itself but discussing the speech which he made on the subject of the Amendment, since the Amendment is not before us.
The Amendment in question, if it had been before us, would have demanded the Minister's approval to what is now described as a handbook compiled by the authorities for use in elementary schools. If that was so, it would equally impose a very severe handicap upon Ministers, and would bring the general primary education

of the future into a situation which has never been experienced. I think the Amendment is wider and more complicated than he thought. My advice to the Committee would be not to press the Amendments before us, which are too wide, and to allow a Debate to develop on the later Amendment, which deals with the whole question of the government of school, the position of the local authority, the question of laying model articles, and so forth, on which I shall be prepared to make what, I am afraid, will be a fairly comprehensive statement, indicating what we have in mind.

Mr. E. Harvey: I very much regret that the President has not been able to take some steps at this stage, even though he does not seem able to accept the Amendment, to meet a very real need in regard to the present situation in many elementary schools, which is for the creation of a real body of managers. There are too many education authorities with no managers at all, because the education committee themselves are, in effect, the body of management. I know of one large city of about 500,000 inhabitants where the education committee are the managers, and they have some three co-opted members. As a general rule, none of the elected members goes into the school, and the result is that no one can act as intermediary between the teachers and the local education committee. A school manager may have very small power, but he may have enormous influence. He can help to keep the machine working smoothly, and he can be the means by which the teacher can express his grievances. He can talk over difficulties, and very often he can informally help to alleviate a position, when difficulties have arisen between the central office and the staff. The body of school managers in the local education authority gives an opportunity of civic service to a large number of people who would never have aspired to a position on a municipal council or corporate body, but who, nevertheless, can do very great service. We ought to see that opportunity extended. The President must realise—I think he does—that in many of our educational authorities there are no such managers dealing with council schools, and there ought to be, I think—

Mr. Butler: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend unnecessarily, but if he


will look at the Clause he will see that the whole object is to set up an instrument for every school. The whole question was, not whether that instrument should be set up, but whether, in every single case, a primary school should come to Whitehall and to the Minister. We wholly accept the hon. Gentleman's views about the setting up of an instrument of management.

Mr. E. Harvey: Provided that we shall be assured at the right time that such an instrument shall provide an effective body of managers connected with every school, I shall be entirely satisfied. If I may assume that that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman, I am greatly relieved.

Sir G. Schuster: It was my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Jew-son), who moved the Amendment, and not I, and I think he is going to ask leave to withdraw it. Before he does so, perhaps I may say a word. My right hon. Friend did me some slight injustice in saying that I had not realised how wide the Amendment was. I did realise it perfectly, and equally I did not expect him, for that reason, to accept it, but I thought it worth while to raise the question, because I wanted to give expression to a point of view. I object to any distinction being made as regards the importance of the supervisory function that is to be exercised in regard to primary and secondary schools. I do not see why the people who supervise primary schools should be called managers, and those who supervise schools should be called governors, since their tasks appear to me to be equally important. I also object to any distinction being made in regard to favourable treatment—it is assumed that it connotes favourable treatment to bring the Minister in, if his approval is required—between schools which are financed entirely out of public funds and schools part of the money for whose finances has to be found elsewhere. The children in those schools deserve equal care, and therefore there is a principle of justice underlying the amendment which I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates. I do not wish to press the matter any further at this stage.

Mr. Jewson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 14, line 25, to leave out from "government," to "the," in line 28, and to insert:
which are in general conformity to model articles set out in a Schedule to this Act and are approved by.
I think you would agree, Mr. Williams, that the Amendment covers all later Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) and some of his hon. Friends, and, I believe, that of the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). I am strongly fortified in having that wide backing. I believe there is, in the Committee, and certainly in the country, a very strong feeling that this issue is central to the whole Bill. I would like to make one quotation, which stands at the head of Mr. Lester Smith's book. He is the director of education for Manchester, and his book is entitled "To Whom the Schools Belong." This is the quotation:
To whom does the school belong—to the family, to the community, to the Church, or to the State? All these are interested in the school. The problem is, can these various interests be assisted by a just consideration of their rights and duties?
I hesitate to quote a distinguished philosopher from Cambridge, who is being brought back, but Mr. Bertrand Russell made very much the same remark some years ago, when he said:
The State, the Church, the schoolmaster and the parent—no one of these can be trusted to care adequately for the children's welfare, since each wishes the children to minister to some end which has nothing necessarily to do with its well-being.
More important than that is the Spens report, which is the document I myself wish to quote, because it is the result of consideration by a large body of people connected with secondary education. They say:
We feel bound to assert our faith in the English compromise between State regulation and freedom of teaching, and to express the hope that circumstances will never arise to endanger its continuance, for where the schools lose their freedom, the freedom of the individual citizen is in peril.
In this Clause there are these words:
and such articles shall, in particular, determine the function to be exercised in relation to the school by the local education authority, the body of governors and the head teacher respectively.
Previously, my right hon. Friend, in his Second Reading speech, said that elaborate


provision had been made for instruments and articles of government, and he went on to quote Sub-section (5) of the Clause, which says:
the Minister shall have regard to the manner in which the school has been conducted theretofore.
Hon. Members say: "Why all this worry, if you have the instruments of government, and if you have the Minister's word? Why go on with it?" The reason why I go on with it is that, among other things, all the headmasters and headmistresses on the Fleming Committee, all the governing bodies of the public boys' and girls' schools, the Association of Headmasters and Headmistresses, and the Association of Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistresses, have written to the "Times" and asked that negotiations shall be set on foot now, so that an agreement may be reached upon the principles which shall apply to articles of government for the secondary schools.
Therefore, I am not speaking just for myself or for other hon. Members, but for the whole body of the people who actually operate in the schools. I am not now speaking or attempting to speak for local education authorities or for the Churches, but for the people who actually conduct the schools. I have letters—although I have not brought them all, as they are a large number—from scores of headmasters all over the country who are extremely worried. The one thing on which the Fleming Committee were agreed, was
suitable instruments and articles of government should be adopted by local education authorities and governors, on the lines of the model proposed by the Board of Education, after due consideration of the parties involved.
The Fleming Committee was appointed on 2nd June, 1942. On 7th November the President asked them to report on fees in grant aided schools. In February they reported. He incorporated some of their conclusions in the White Paper, but the Report was not issued until the Summer Recess in August. Therefore, we have never had any discussion of this interim Report. I am very disappointed that we should be here discussing this vital Amendment without the full Report from the Fleming Committee on it. It is extremely difficult and I can only go upon the minority and majority reports on the

question of fees, which is one issue. The question of fees cannot be considered here but I cannot dissociate fees from this issue, because it raises a number of allied problems; the rôle of the governing body, which we are discussing here, the parent's choice of school, and the schools' choice of their pupils are absolutely vital. We are asking the Board to produce model articles either in a Schedule or to lie on the Table, and only in the last resort that there shall be some White Paper, though I personally do not want that. I want to see them produced by the President in a Schedule.
I cannot for the life of me see why he has not adopted the conclusions of that Fleming Report. There are no fewer than 38 paragraphs of the Fleming Report devoted to this question of school governance, and anyone conversant with English education knows perfectly well that many schools will, unless there is a legal safeguard, be levelled down and degraded. I say levelled down and degraded because the essence of the school is its individuality. The individuality is very much tied up with the kind of points which we wish to see in the model articles. What are these points? They are freedom to choose the headmaster, the right of access by the headmaster to the governing body—[Interruption]—the governing body. I may say that if my right hon. Friend would take the existing practice of local authorities and their schemes he would see that in many cases the relations between the local education authority and the governing body is a very happy one.

Mr. Cove: Is the local education authority not to be considered?

Mr. Lindsay: Perhaps I had better make this quite clear. There are two questions we have to bear in mind the whole time. One is the freedom of the school, the other is the relation of that school to an area, to a community. I do not wish to avoid the issue. I do not wish to say that there are not many cases, as for example Bishop Wordsworth's School in Wiltshire, where there is a very happy relationship indeed, but I know of many cases of maintained schools where relations are quite otherwise.

Mr. Cove: I understood the hon. Member to make the point—I may have misunderstood him—that he wants what he calls the independence of variety of these schools, and one of the


safeguards he suggests for that independence of variety is that there should be model articles to compel the local authority to allow the governors to appoint the headmaster? Is that his position?

Mr. Lindsay: No. If the school is independent the question does not arise; the governing body choose a headmaster as they wish. If there is a relation between the State or the local authority and the school, the appointment is co-operative; if my hon. Friend will listen—

Mr. Cove: It is a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Lindsay: It has to be. I am prepared to have this debated for some time if something is not done. I am not going to hand over the whole of the secondary schools, the old grammar schools of this country, whose individuality has been handed down by successive headmasters, to local education authorities as they are constituted in this country at the present time, without legal safeguards.

Mr. Cove: The hon. Member's argument is not democratic.

Mr. Lindsay: I am quite prepared to have an argument about democracy with my hon. Friend, but I agree with the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) that this idea that because a certain number of people are elected to a local authority for a great many reasons other than education they are therefore to have control, as they may have, of the curriculum. The Parliamentary Secretary said to-day that governing bodies will deal with the curriculum and careers. How do we know that?

Mr. Lipson: Would not the point which the hon. Member has raised about the appointment of headmasters be met by the practice of many local authorities that the governors of the school consider the applications and make a recommendation to the local authority, and the local authority has the right to approve or otherwise?

Mr. Lindsay: I do not object at all to the local education authority having the right of approval in certain cases but there are a great variety of ways in which a headmaster can be appointed, and the relationship between the assistant masters

and the headmaster is important. Let me quote London, since my hon. Friend is pursuing this point, and I know a little about this, as I went to one of the oldest Elizabethan grammar schools in London for some years. On the whole it was a very good arrangement. There is a close scrutiny of the general accounts which has to be conformed to, and also the staffing ratio, which is a somewhat different point. So far as the freedom of the school curriculum and all questions of discipline and the rest are concerned the headmaster is entirely free. He has a representative body of governors; some come from universities, some from Guy's Hospital, etc. In the case of a maintained school in London, the vacant governor is chosen by the Party Whip. I am not prepared to see that happen to schools of that standard, remembering that, according to what the Parliamentary Secretary said to-day, every reorganised senior school or as we call it now, modern school, is to have a governing body.
This is a first-class issue. I am in favour of free secondary education, but I want to say this: there is a great deal of humbug going on at this time. Sooner or later there will come a clash. Anybody who says to me that the children attending the 450 odd unreorganised departments in London, with some 40,000 children, are attending the same type of school as the grammar schools which have existed for many years, with a sixth form producing classical and other scholars who have gone on to Oxford and Cambridge for the last 200 years, is talking nonsense. The two things have no relation to each other. Yet in this comprehensive way we say that these are all secondary schools. I want to level up. It is not the task of the reformer to cut down a good and growing thing. There is no point or value in it. There is a danger that without these safeguards, we may lose this freedom. I remember a distinguished headmaster saying, "I see the encroachments on our powers and independence year by year, and I see what has been lost." There is not the most wide distribution of classes in the grammar schools of this country. I agree to the abolition of fees. But fees are a symbol to some extent of freedom, so is endowment money; and if you abolish fees I want a quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is the governing body and articles


which lay down in far closer definition the points which my right hon. Friend has referred to in his Second Reading speech and his speech on the White Paper.
May I give the reason which the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. G. A. Morrison) put forward on the Scottish Estimates? He speaks with enormous experience as an old headmaster in Scotland, where incidentally there is less freedom. He said in effect, "Do you think men are coming back from the Forces to serve in schools under men who have no knowledge of the subject to which they themselves are giving their lives?" He said that as an old headmaster of a Scottish academy. I think we are entitled to listen to him.

Mr. Messer: That does not prove anything.

Mr. Lindsay: It does not prove anything, but it is worth listening to. There are, of course, a great many other points. On the question of the wider areas I support the hon. Member who has just interrupted me. I believe in them. One of the points I made when we discussed this, I repeat it, is that if we are to have wider areas, counties and county boroughs, we must associate in some way the local people who are interested in education with the individual school. I think it is better to do that through persons in what I call direct democracy. That is why we seek to provide that parents shall be represented. This principle is being practised at the moment in Moscow both in relation to housing and education. It is not a question of putting people on a local authority and then into contact with schools. It is associating them directly with a housing estate or a school. It is a very remarkable development.

Mr. Butler: Are not the elected representatives of local government a direct democracy? If the hon. Member will define his case it will be easier for us not to misunderstand him.

Mr. Lindsay: I do not want to be misunderstood, particularly by my right hon. Friend. There are a large number of people who cannot afford the time or money to sit on a local authority. There are to my certain knowledge a large number of people who wish to be associated with schools, with pre-service units and

other educational agencies. They are willing to sit one day or two days a month and to be associated with a particular school. At the moment, unless they get co-opted on a local education authority, there is no method by which they can give that valuable service. Therefore I want to make provision that the governing bodies of secondary schools shall enlarge the scope of their representation through men and women who are prepared to give direct service. I have made a longer speech than I would otherwise have done, because I do not intend to move on Clause 19, when we reach it, an Amendment dealing with the access of the headmaster to the governing body. No one ever mentions the staff, the assistant masters; here again I have an Amendment later, which will not be called, proposing that there shall be indirect representation.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then we cannot discuss that now.

Mr. Lindsay: In that case I will not refer to it as an Amendment, but as one of the items in the articles of government under this Clause. Some of us wish to see the assistant masters given indirect representation on the governing body. There is no guarantee here that it will be done. In London to-day there are four different types of school—independent, direct, grant-aided, and maintained—and there is a great variety of instruments of government, which I have been trying recently to analyse. Take a school like Dulwich College, take a school like St. Dunstan's, and then take, whatever it is to be called, a re-organised senior or modern school. We want to be certain that in drawing up the articles of government you will not take the worst examples. My right hon. Friend may say, "If you put down model articles, you may get the lowest common factor." I do not think that that is necessarily the case. We do not regret spending two hours on this question, which raises the whole issue of the freedom of the school. I think this is not only greatly desired but will make a number of people much happier about the passing of this Bill; because I know that outside there are many people who question this particular Clause; and many who have written to the Press and to me. In that spirit, I ask my right hon. Friend to give the matter the most careful consideration.

Mr. Piekthorn: If I may begin by consulting you, Mr. Williams, may I ask whether the second Amendment to line 32, in my name and those of four or five of my hon. Friends—at the end, to insert:
and
(c) such rules of management and such articles of government shall conform, so far as may be reasonable and practicable, to model rules and articles set out in a Schedule to this Act"—
is to be discussed with the Amendment now before the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, that is so. That Amendment is considered to be covered by this Amendment, and we are discussing the two together.

Mr. Pickthorn: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I should, naturally, have preferred my own form of words—I suppose even my own form of words would not exactly do, because one is always told by the draftsmen that one's form of words will not do—but, speaking generally, I wish to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and, speaking generally, I wish to support his argument. With apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who seemed to think it improper that anybody should discuss anything in the nature of general principles in this matter, I propose, with the consent of the Chair and the indulgence of the Committee, to say a word about the general principle involved. First of all, this is an agreed Measure. If it is not, in the main, an agreed Measure, we ought to be discussing it at much greater length and with much more ferocity. It is, therefore, to be taken as an agreed Measure if we are to get it through at all. There are, no doubt, some Members of this Committee, and some persons interested in the subject outside, who honestly believe that the most important and useful thing for the progress of education is that there should be one single, uniform system, they do not much care what it is—certainly they do not much care what it is, if only it is controlled by the State. I do not wish to argue against that. But it is necessary that this Bill should be carried in such a form as not to be disagreeable to those who take the opposite view; otherwise, this Bill is an organised hypocrisy from the first and it will not work. If what we most desire is

that there shall be such administrative reform as may be possible without any diminution in variety of the educational system, this is, as my hon. Friend on the Front Bench opposite said, almost the central point of the Bill, and we need not apologise for taking some little time over it.
I want to put for the consideration of the Committee this proposition: That in any affairs, from the greatest to the smallest, from the State to a dominoes club, there can be only two safeguards for proper management. One is the character of the people who do the managing, and the other is the limit within which their functions are confined. I do not think human ingenuity has found any third provision. We do not know and we cannot know who are to be the governors of these schools—but we do know, roughly, what is to be the character of the governors of these schools. I think it was that great man Archbishop Magee, but I am not sure—I am certain it was an episcopal character—who said that there was no set of men who did so much harm as those who went about doing good. That is the curse of education. The philanthropists, the busybodies, the chaps who like to do good to other people: those are the chaps who tend to govern education. Some are better than others, and some are a good deal worse, but they are the chaps. Their motives were put rather neatly, although he did not mean to do so, by the Parliamentary Secretary on an earlier Amendment to-day. He said first that they have great responsibility. So they have, in the modern sense of "responsibility," which means that it does not matter what happens to the school; they never go to jug, anyway. The second thing said about them was that they were exceedingly willing to serve—which is a roundabout way of saying that they are busybodies—and the third was that they regarded such service as an honour. I am not in the least disposed to sneer at the governors of schools.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member I am sure does not want to misrepresent what I said. What I did say was that these people regarded it as an opportunity for honourable service—in much the same way as my hon. Friend the Member of Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) said that they had not the time to serve on the local council, but they did want an opportunity of service. It is not because they want


any glory, but because they want to serve their fellowmen in all humility.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sure my hon. Friend does not want to talk out his own Bill. I think I reported what he said, with great accuracy. I think one of the things he said was about their exceeding willingness to serve, and the other was that service was an honour. I regard those as very good motives, but they are motives which those who are to come under the management of the men actuated by them, should regard with suspicion. The old tag about
Power corrupts everybody, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,
applies here. These are perfectly good motives, but motives which if not, I will not say confined, but limited and directed within the field of function which those who are to be governed consider proper, tend to turn into bad motives. Therefore, there is all the more reason why we should know what is the constitution under which these men are to act. It does not seem fair to the Committee to tell us that we must trust my right hon. Friend, who is necessarily an evanescent figure, or that we are to trust his officials, or that we are, in general, to trust to good will anywhere.

Mr. Messer: Or to trust anybody.

Mr. Pickthorn: I agree. It is the business of the House of Commons not to trust anybody in passing legislation.

Mr. Messer: Thank God, I have more confidence.

Mr. Pickthorn: Nor, I think should we pay too much attention to two arguments which are put up. One is that if you put in a model set of articles, what you intend as a minimum standard may well turn into a maximum. I agree that there is that danger always, but I do not think that we should pay too much attention to it. If we do, we cut off the people who use it from also using the argument about trusting to good will. It is quite clear that if there is any genuine reason why we should trust the good will of the Minister or his officials or their successors, we do not need to fear that if a minimum standard is put into a model set of articles it will turn into a maximum, because if there is good will in the management that cannot possibly happen.
It may be said to the likes of me, "You profess to be championing varieties." I hope I am. For myself, I would be bold enough to say that I would rather have any form of variety, even bad, than any form of uniformity, even good. They then say, "But, really, what you are suggesting is that the thing will not be manageable under the existing variety, and, therefore, we shall have to reduce variety." I do not think that an argument to which the Committee should pay too much attention. Recently we passed a Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill. In that Bill—I have not looked the Bill up, but it is within the recollection of the Committee—came the words "reasonable and practicable" in several places. There were to be rules or reinstatement, which were to be stuck to as often as was reasonable and practicable, and so on. Think of the infinite variety of jobs from which men went away, and of the changes that will happen in those jobs while they are away; and the changes that will happen to the men themselves, so that some of them will be more efficient when they come back, and others less efficient. In spite of that infinite variety of circumstances, it is possible to do there the thing which is asked here. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend whether we ought to take the very long step which is necessary if this Bill is going to amount to anything at all—and, of course, it is highly hypothetical; we none of us know what conditions will be like in 18 months' time—without asking for some assurance, not merely good will, but some undertaking which will have a legal obligation, of what are to be the limits of function within which these boards of governors are to keep themselves.

Mr. Cove: I would like to refer back to the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). It was a most astounding speech, characterised by a complete lack of faith in elected bodies, a complete lack of faith in local authorities. With all the specious talk of lack of variety, what is really actuating the mind of my hon. Friend?

Mr. Pickthorn: How could the hon. Member know?

Mr. Cove: Because the same thing actuates the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). He has revealed, even more than my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has, what is


actuating him. It is the desire for the preservation of class distinction in the field of secondary education.

Mr. Lindsay: I wish to say definitely that that is complete and utter nonsense.

Mr. Cove: My hon. Friend in his own speech referred to letters in "The Times." From whom do those letters come? They came from people in the educational world who want to preserve the class distinctions that now exist in the educational system.

Professor Gruffydd: The statement of the hon. Member ought to be corrected. The letters that I and other Members have received have not come from headmasters of public schools but from headmasters of county schools.

Mr. Cove: It is none the less true that, even there, you can have the snobbery that one does not want to exist in secondary education from those who are employed in the schools. That is where the letters come from. They have not come from representative local authorities. One of the things that depresses me in listening to the Debate to-day is the fear, the suspicion in regard to the powers of local authorities—the lack of trust in those elected authorities. This note has been running through the Debate all the time. Complete distrust has been expressed over and over again. You cannot have good will when distrust is being displayed. I am profound in my belief in the powers, prestige and authority of the local elected representatives, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do nothing to take away those powers. I believe in democracy, not by lip service but by actual practice.
Look at the Amendment. It is said that we want variety. What does the Amendment do? It asks for a model scheme. This is autocracy asking the Minister to provide a model scheme. It is rigidity. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock may shake his head, but that is what he is asking. He is asking for a model scheme, which must have the approval of the Minister, to be imposed on every local authority. There is rigidity in his Amendment, and variety in his speech. I have seen this occur over and over again; it is a plea for the special public school and the direct grant-aided school and all the class distinction schools that my hon. Friend can preserve. Look at the Clause. The Minister himself has power under the

Clause. The instruments of government have to be drawn up by the local authority, and it is of that that my hon. Friend is afraid. But the position of the Minister is sensible. Then he reserves to himself the right to approve of the instruments of government. What more does my hon. Friend want than that? As I have said before, there is in this an innate distrust of the powers of the local authority, the fear of real democracy and the desire to preserve class privilege in the whole range of secondary education.

Mr. E. Harvey: I very much regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has felt that he must transmute light into heat in the way he has done. I am sure that the Amendment is moved as much in the interests of the secondary schools under local authorities as of other schools. I saw last week a letter in the Press from two headmasters of secondary schools under a large Northern authority in which they pleaded for greater power for their governors, and a greater position of responsibility. They pointed out how under that authority—it is not so under all of them, as there are many enlightened authorities where the position is entirely right—anything which the governors did or any minute which they passed was ignored entirely. In some cases they did not always get to the education committee at all. We want to sever schools like this from the tyranny of a narrow bureaucracy. It is not a case of overriding the elected representatives if the governors are given a position of responsibility. You can safeguard in every way the authority of elected representatives of the people, and yet there can be sufficient authority entrusted to the governors to make it worth while for them to give their time to this very important duty.
I emphasise the enormous importance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) on the individuality and personality of the school. Every school ought to have—and every good school has—an individuality and a personality of its own, whether a simple elementary school or any other kind of school. We want to preserve that, and to encourage its growth where it has not yet come into being. Therefore, we need to have in the Bill, when it becomes an Act, some provision which will ensure the free and healthy


development of the life of the schools, preserve their personality and encourage the free gift of service which is of such value and which is being given to-day by so many governors. The Amendment is in the interests of the children and school, the staff and school, and in the interests of the citizens. It is very important that the staff should feel that they have the loyalty of the school and that they are not just part of an enormous regiment who may be transferred hither or thither by some bureaucrat. If we can get from the President of the Board of Education some assurance that in this Measure there will be provision to meet the spirit of the Amendment, I think we shall be satisfied.

Professor Gruffydd: Judging from some speeches and a large number of the interruptions, I should say that the main concern of the Committee seems to be the dignity and the feelings of the local education authority, and not the education of the child. May I try to bring back the Committee to a sense of reality in this matter and to say again what I have said before, that, in the first, second and third place, what we are concerned with is the education and well-being of the child in the school. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), that these discussions are shots fired in a war for the secondary schools of England and Wales. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that we are trying to institute a new kind of snobbishness, but what we are trying to do is precisely the opposite. We are trying to put an end to the terrible gap which still exists in this country—and will exist even under the provisions of this Bill between the free county secondary school and the public school, with its immense tradition and prestige. I want to close that gap not by pulling down the prestige and esteem of the public school, but by raising the prestige of the free county school to the same level. Clauses 15 to 19 go to the very root of the philosophy of education and if the provisions in these Clauses prove unsatisfactory, the whole intricate mass of this Bill will have lost a good deal of the reason for its existence.
I am surprised that it has not been noticed in this Debate that the Bill gives a new definition to the word "secondary," altogether a new meaning in the history of education. Before the Bill was

brought forward this term was generally confined to schools of the grammar school type, providing education and preparing for the professions and for the university; schools which aimed at what is called a liberal education, whether that ideal was reached or not. It was precisely that aspect of education which captured the imagination of the poorer parents of this country who wanted their children to get on. These parents did not actually in the past think very much of what we now call senior-school education or modern education and not very much of technical education. It was, in quality, precisely the type of education which was being given in the public schools of England and Wales that the parents wished to see their own children enjoy. That might have been wrong and it might have been snobbish or very ill-advised, but their ambition was that their children should have the same education as the children of the rich, to have the same opportunities, tasting the rare and refreshing fruit of office and privilege which the other classes had. Therefore, the cry "Secondary education for all" became a slogan in this country, and now this Bill is going to try to implement and to satisfy that cry by giving a secondary education to all children over 11 plus years of age.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to do that, I am afraid, merely by using the word "secondary" in a new connotation and not by creating a really new system of secondary education. The secondary schools of England and Wales in future will not only be secondary schools of the grammar school type, but they will also contain all the residue, the children who fail to pass the examinations to go into the grammar school, the children in the modern and technical schools, which necessarily must, if education is to be compulsory, contain a large proportion of the unteachable, who must by law go to these so-called "secondary" schools. All these are going to be called secondary schools, there is going to be no distinction between the county modern and the county grammar school. How then are the county free grammar schools going to compete with the Public Schools under those conditions? They can only compete with them if they have two of the characteristics which mark grammar schools, namely a distinct and definite Articles of Government and a Governing Body of their own. I challenge the


Minister to say that anybody in the country, whether a teacher or a member of a local education authority, or anybody else, would deny that this is an indispensable condition of this freedom for the secondary school. I beg the Minister to consider very closely the pleas that have been made by the mover of the Amendment and others. Of course, it may not be possible for him to go as far as the Amendment, but it will be possible for him, I think, to do something to satisfy us that the very excellent start in secondary education which this country has made, in England as well as in Wales, is not going to be stultified by degrading the standard of the secondary schools we have already got.

Mr. Lipson: I am in favour of the freedom of the secondary school, but where I part company with the supporters of the Amendment is that I cannot agree that the way to freedom is the way suggested by the Amendment. I cannot see how, by setting up a model imposed by the Board for secondary schools, you are going to get freedom.

Mr. Lindsay: This is the third time that that has been said. I said that there is a series of models based on the best practice in the country. It is not a question of imposing one model on each school, but the very reverse.

Mr. Lipson: The assumption is that you cannot improve on the best practice. That is the assumption behind it, but if I may pursue the matter further, my objection to these proposals is this. I understand the freedom of the school to mean the freedom of the headmaster and his staff to carry on their own particular work in the school without undue interference, and the suggestion behind a good many of the speeches by the supporters of the Amendment is that that freedom is in danger from the representation of the people who sit on local authorities. Let me say that there is, perhaps, even more danger to the freedom of the headmaster in his own school, from a member of a governing body who is not one of the representatives of the local authority, but is himself a person of academic qualifications. The real danger to the freedom of any school is the governor who, himself, has been a schoolmaster or headmaster and who thinks he knows how it should be run and who wants the school to be run as his school

was run. He is a great nuisance to the headmaster of a school.

Mr. Pickthorn: Do ex-schoolmasters become innocent on local bodies, although they are so noxious on governing bodies?

Mr. Lipson: I am not suggesting that, but if you stand for the freedom of the headmaster, it surely means that there should be as little interference as possible from the governing body whether it is from a governor or a local authority representative. I say the danger is at least as great, and, from my own experience in practice, is greater from the ex-school-master and ex-headmaster. Do you think that in this atmosphere of suspicion that you are going to get this Bill implemented as it ought to be? If you say to local authorities that you have put this into the Bill because this Committee does not trust them to do their work properly and that they have got to work within certain limits approved by the Bill, is that going to create a proper atmosphere? Every local authority and every school has to work out its own salvation. The one advantage of having the school governors on the local authority is that they are responsible to the people of their area. If they do not do their job properly, the blame is not only on them, but on the people who sent them there. There are incompetent governors who do not play their part and it is very difficult to get rid of them. Therefore, I maintain, in the interests of educational freedom, that if we give certain powers to local authorities we should say that we trust them to do their job. I oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Butler: I think we have had a useful Debate on this point, and it may be valuable to the Committee if at this point I put before them the Government's attitude towards this Amendment. I hope that Members, when they have heard what I have to say, will realise that the Government have given this matter very careful consideration. Nobody has come very well out of this discussion. We are told by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that education suffers from educationists who go about doing good. We are told from other hon. Members that the local authorities are not fit to run education, and we are told from other sources that to leave too much to the Minister—which is where I come into it—might be leaving too much discretion


to one individual and that it would be wise to have some indication of the manner in which the mysterious mind of the Minister will work. As nobody comes out of it with flying colours, I have, as usual, to adjudicate on the claims. I propose to indicate to the Committee how, in this case, I propose to achieve justice for all concerned.
The Government are fully alive to the anxieties of hon. Members, and there has not been a speech to-day which has referred to the importance of preserving the individual life of a school, with which I disagree. The Bill is based on the school and its life and the family and its life. These units must be healthy. Without this, true education cannot be formed or administered. It is against that background that the Government drafted Clause 16 of the Bill. I am a little surprised that some hon. Members have not picked out of Clause 16 some of the undoubted merits it possesses. I do not believe that it would be correct to say that the secondary school world is against the provisions of Clause 16. I have very good reason to believe that the secondary school world, as a whole, is grateful to us for the manner in which this Clause has been drawn and, in the course of my speech, I hope to show that it has many virtues for dealing with a vital part of the Bill. But before I consider the details and suggestions made by hon. Members, I want to remind the Committee that we are entering a new secondary school world under this Bill which has two main characteristics.
The first is that the pupils will be encouraged to go to whatever type of secondary school suits them best, grammar, modern, or technical, and they will not go by rigid examination tests. There is, thus, one secondary school world and not two or three. The second characteristic, which is a distressing one perhaps, but a necessary one, is that the Government have introduced a new general overriding system into which the secondary schools will fit with the corresponding result that their relationship with the education authorities will be, in many cases, much more closely defined than before. I think that that is something which those who are moving this Amendment will realise, goes the way of their arguments. In view of the fact that relations may be more closely defined, they

want to be sure that those relations are satisfactorily defined. I would answer their fears by saying that, in my view, the very definition of relationship may result in a better atmosphere existing between the authority and the school, and do away with the friction which may result at present, from an indefinite relationship and uncertainty between the two partners. That is why I think there is value in the approach made by the senior burgess far Cambridge University.
This need for defining relationship with the authority gives us an opportunity of avoiding friction, and making the independent life of the school as satisfactory as hon. Members desire. What has been the position hitherto? Hitherto, while the relationship between modern schools and authorities has been closely defined, that between grammar schools and the authorities has not. It has been wholly negotiated between the parties concerned. It is true that the Board, some time ago, issued a model statement, including model articles, but no one was obliged to follow it and the articles drawn up by the local education authorities do not require the Board's sanction. The great merit of Clause 16, to which I referred in my opening remarks, is that under this Clause the articles of government will have to be made by the Minister or will require his approval, and I think it is time that somebody paid a tribute to that feature in this particular Clause. We shall, therefore, be in a better position to secure the acceptance of any principle we lay down.
I would like to define the Government's attitude to the doubts which have been raised. Some hon. Members, especially the hon. Member who represents Cambridge University, desire a Schedule to the Bill including the articles of government indicating how the individual life of a school can be preserved. For reasons which I will give, the Government cannot accept the suggestion. Clause 16 was drafted so as to make it possible for individual articles to be agreed for individual schools and to lay down one particular model would, I think, make it more difficult for that to come to pass. To lay down one in a schedule would not give an opportunity for considering the individual characteristics of schools and the manner in which they fit into their own locality, which, I think, is one of the most important features of the educational


development in this country. The reason why the last words of Clause 16 were inserted was because we wanted to preserve the local characteristics of schools and their traditions.
If we cannot lay down a model article, what can we do to assist the hon. Gentleman and his friends? We surely could work out some sort of system of general principles which could apply not only to one class of secondary school—and this meets the point of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr Cove)—but to the secondary world as a whole, and we should like, in framing these principles, to make sufficient allowance for variation in individual schools. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) referred to certain letters which had been written to the newspapers and to certain anxieties which had been expressed. I, of course, have had the opportunity of being in touch with representatives of the different interests in the world of education and I have been aware of the anxieties that were being felt, despite several meetings I have had. But in view of the need for bringing everybody along together in the world of education, and the need for making everyone realise the inherent virtues in this Clause, I decided to start certain conversations at once with the partners in education on this matter. I dare to say that these talks, which I deliberately started in view of the interest shown by the Members of the Committee, have made a good beginning and will be continued. Our idea is to frame a broad body of principles which will generally influence the life of the secondary schools of this country. But I am anxious that these talks should proceed normally, and should not be rushed for reasons of any particular consideration of this matter on a certain day because to try to discuss the future government of schools, against a background of political rush on the Committee Stage in Parliament, would be most unwise, and I ask the Committee to let me discuss these negotiations in an atmosphere of education, and not in an atmosphere of trying to achieve them by a certain date.
I think the Committee would be wise to ask me to present a report on the conclusions reached by these negotiations, so that they may have an opportunity to examine the progress made, and some idea of the lines upon which we are work-

ing As showing the bona fides of our intention in this matter, I will outline some of the principles which are being agreed between representatives of the various branches of the teaching profession, the local authorities and others interested in the schools. I will add this quite shortly simply to show the Committee how seriously the Government takes this portion of the Bill. First, we have so far—and we have only had a few talks—achieved an understanding which will help to set up certain great principles, and yet allow for variation in detail. Second, and this is most important, it is felt that these principles should apply to the general broad field of secondary education and should be capable of application to the different types of school—county, controlled or aided. Coming to some of the details which may interest members of the Committee, there is a feeling that the school should be governed by a properly constituted governing body, and there is a general feeling that these should not be sub-committees of the local education committees. An interesting suggestion has been made that if any grouping, of schools takes place, it may be convenient to group different types of secondary schools so as to include pupils in the different types of the secondary world. That does not command general approval, but it does command approval is certain areas. It indicates the need to preserve variety in the method of governing or arranging our secondary schools.
With regard to finance, we have had put to us the view that governing bodies should have the right to control expenditure within the broad headings of approved expenditure. There is also the suggestion that the governors and head teachers should have a small contingency fund, but this view is not universally accepted. The control of the curriculum, and the appointment and dismissal of teachers can be discussed by the Committee later, perhaps on Clauses 22 and 23, but I would ask the Committee again to recognise something in Clause 16 to which they have not paid tribute—that in it, for the first time, the head teacher finds a defined place in the statute. That is an indication that we are making history and seeking to preserve the position of the head teacher and the independent life of the school. On the subject of head teachers, these talks seem to have reached the general view that the appoint-


ment should be made, in county and controlled schools, by the governors and the authorities in collaboration. We have examined the system, not only in London but in other parts, and will apply it at a later stage when we are able to make a report on these talks and reach some sort of understanding as to the commonsense method adopted by authorities in this matter. It is thought that assistant teachers should be appointed on the recommendation of the governing bodies.
The curriculum is dealt with under Clause 22, and I will only say that I think, in general, the Committee will agree with me that you cannot divorce a school from its own locality. You can preserve the independence of the schools in so far as the governors can develop their own curriculum and their own attitude towards what is agreed, but it must be subject to the authority's right to plan the education of an area. It may be thought that single secondary schools should specialise in certain subjects and that certain other secondary schools should specialise in others, and it is impossible to say that the curriculum can be taken away from the purview of the local authorities. I do not think the democratically-elected representatives of the people should be deprived of their influence on the schools which the children of their own citizens attend.
There have been many other matters discussed. I could describe the approach made, but I am, purposely, confining myself to certain heads, in order to show that the Government are serious in this matter and that we do intend to try to agree on general principles. But I must, finally, bring the Committee right back again to the hard facts of the case. If we pursue a search for some general principles, those general principles cannot have actual legal application. You cannot have, so to speak, a Schedule which is not part of an Act. If it is to be a Schedule, it must be part of the law of the land, and, if part of the law of the land, it must be imposed in the different districts. That has not been brought out in the discussion. I think people have a feeling that they can have it both ways—that they can have rules but need not have them enforced locally. I remember, when engaged in discussions almost as lengthy as these on the Government of India Bill, we had the great

problem of how to put into legal form a document known as the "Rights of Man." It was found very easy to draw up a statement, but very difficult to put it into legal language such as would apply in the courts. We had another instance where it was necessary to define the relationships between the Governor-General and certain governments, and on that occasion my right hon. Friend who was in charge of the Measure laid a statement before the House in which he indicated how the operation of these great personalities would react upon one another in interpreting the Statute.
In this connection, we have a similar sort of problem, a problem in which you cannot give actual legal sanction to general principles, but you can so draw up general principles that the Minister will get into trouble if he does not follow them. What I suggest to the Committee is that, at some stage when these talks have got a bit further and we have consulted every interest, we should lay before the House a document including these general principles, and we should be able to investigate them and so arrange things that these principles are taken as being those upon which the secondary schools of our country can be organised. By that method we shall have avoided the difficulty, on the one hand, of regulating through Parliament the lives of individual schools, and, on the other, of leaving the position so vague that the lives of these schools are not secure. If the Committee will follow me in that, I will, for my part, lay something before them at a later date.

Sir Richard Wells: I have been a governor for over 20 years of four large schools. Under this Bill, it is quite possible that these direct-grant schools will join aided schools, and become auxiliary schools, and so largely come under the local education authority. My experience as a governor has been a happy one during 20 odd years. We have a very varied list of governors. We have two from Oxford University, one from Cambridge and one from London University, one nomination by the Lord Chancellor, and others from the staffs of the school, the parents and the borough and county councils. This works exceedingly well. We have been working for many years under a scheme drawn up by the Board of Education, and agreed


upon with the Board, covering all four schools. If the schemes of the future are to be like that, I think there is a great deal of hope for the secondary schools. What the direct-grant school and the aided schools are afraid of, is a lowering of the educational standard.
There are many points regarding the work of these old grammar schools which, I think, should, and must, have consideration. At present there is the control of the governors, and you are going to have an overriding control of the auxiliary schools by the local authority. There can be no question about that—if the governors want to do anything, they must go to the local authority for consent. I can mention, as an illustration, the fact that we have a property in London, and, in one night, we lost many thousands a year by bombing. One school was deficient. We went to the local authority and said "Will you make good the deficiency?", and they said "Of course, on conditions," and one of the conditions was a lowering of the salary of the masters by which their pensions would be prejudiced. We went to the Board and they gave us help. I should like to suggest to the President of the Board of Education that an appeal should be allowed to the Board of Education in any question of dispute of that sort which might arise. I think that would be very helpful. There is another point—the question of boarders. Many of these old grammar schools have boarders and they help the school, raise the school-leaving age and increase the educational value of these schools. I do not know quite what the local authorities would say regarding boarders—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Younģ): The hon. Member is now going rather wide.

Sir R. Wells: I apologise, Sir Robert. But I would say there is also the question of the admission of pupils, in which the local authority will want to have a very large say. The governors will also want to have a say about the admission of boarders. I think these points are worthy of consideration, because they mean so much to the schools.

Mr. Gallacher: I recognise the position of the Minister, but I want to draw attention to this fact. At one time education was in the hands of the Church, but the

Church was concerned with education only for the purpose of getting a sufficient number of students for the services of the Church. The great mass of the people went without education. With the coming of the industrial system, it became necessary to extend education. Educated workers had to be produced in greater and greater numbers, until it became a State system. Education then became purely utilitarian and it developed at a much faster rate in industrial areas than in rural areas. Local authorities in industrial areas had to encourage education in order to get the necessary skilled men for the factories.
What has been happening in rural areas? Have local authorities taken advantage of the opportunities for development in education? Go into the rural areas and see what has happened. It is necessary, from the point of view of making this a Bill which fits all the people, that it shall not be left to the gentry in the country to decide what is to be done in education. The Minister has certain powers, and he says that he wants to keep a school's particular individuality and tradition. I do not like that.
There are educational methods and schools which have produced a very useful and valuable citizen like the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) but there are no traditions attached to such a school. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] No, no, you cannot come along and talk about traditions. You are talking about something else, about the lopsided, absurd system of education that has produced the useless and anything but ornamental exhibits that we see on the other side. We should get away from this idea of tradition. I am concerned that the Minister, who has very considerable power, should have even more than he has at the present time, so that he can cover the whole of the country and develop high standards not only in the urban, but in the rural districts. Because of that I regret that he is not giving more consideration to this Amendment.

Mr. Lindsay: I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on rather new grounds, and I only rise to say that I think those who supported the Amendment will admit that my right hon. Friend has met them very handsomely. There


are only two questions I want to put before we close. I do not consider wasted the two hours' discussion which we have had on the freedom of the school, but when will the Report be produced? Will it be produced before the end of the passage of this Bill? Secondly, could the Minister give any more indication of the form he expects it to take? Will it be in the form of a White Paper, or something which will be laid on the Table?

Mr. Butler: I would rather give no absolute undertaking as to when these discussions will be ended, because I do not quite know how long they are likely to go on, but I will certainly put it before the House in whatever form the hon. Gentleman may think advisable. I should have thought it would be wiser to put it in the form of a White Paper, indicating the nature of the progress made, and the Committee could then consider it in the light of the contents. I should like the aid of the Committee in this matter, but I would have thought, in the first place, that it should be in the form of a White Paper.

Mr. Lindsay: Would that be before the Bill is through? I am only concerned that my right hon. Friend, with his tireless patience, has now a variety of discussions going on with a number of parties on religion, finance, local government and so on. Some of us are a little concerned that some of these shall come to a conclusion reasonably early, and especially this particular one.

Mr. Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the consideration which I put before the Committee—that is, that if this is negotiated against the wrong background we shall not get the same satisfactory results? If I find that the discussions proceed in such a way that I can lay the result before the end of the passage of the Bill—either here or in another place—I will; but if I felt that was not feasible, I should come to the Committee and inform them in answer to any points the hon. Gentleman might put to me. I would rather give no definite date, but I will carry on the conversations as quickly as I can and lay the results before the House.

Mr. Lindsay: Then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir P. Hannon: I beg to move, in page 15, line 8, at the end, to add:
(6) If a local education authority inform the Minister that they are aggrieved by an order made by him under this section the order shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be thereafter and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such order is laid before it resolves that the order be annulled the order shall cease to have effect but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new order or amendment.
In reckoning any such period of forty days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
This Amendment follows the general line of the Amendment approved earlier to-day in relation to giving the local authority the fullest possible notice of any proposed transfer. Many of the local authorities feel that before the Minister decides on the contribution of the Government to the management of schools, there should be an opportunity for their views to be taken on the decision to be arrived at. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether, if he cannot accept the suggestion that the school managers should be told of the arrangement, he should at all events give the House of Commons an opportunity of examining the whole attitude of the Government to the schools. I think he cannot remove from the control of these managers the constitution of the government of the schools without giving the Committee an opportunity of hearing the decision arrived at.

Mr. Butler: I have no great abstract objection to this Amendment, but I must confess that in view of the experience of the delays in amending final Orders under Section 32 of the Act of 1921, I react with something like horror to the thought of the immense strain which would be placed upon the machine were we to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I think it would involve far too many Orders and I do not think really it would be a great safeguard to the House, because of the multiplicity of matters that might come before them. Therefore, I think I should be wrong were I to suggest that this should be regarded as a necessary Amendment. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press it because, if he does, he will find it becomes almost too much for those of us who have to administer education.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of what my hon. Friend says I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir J. Mellor: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will take the opportunity now of explaining how he proposes to implement an assurance which was given to certain schools some time ago. I think it arises under this Clause, because the future of these schools will be very largely determined by the provisions of this Clause. I refer to the schools which, between 1922 and 1926, relinquished a direct grant and proceeded to receive a deficiency grant through the local education authorities upon an assurance from the Board of Education that they would not thereby lose status. This is a matter of very great importance. They were given that very definite collateral assurance—which was not contained in the terms of circular 1259—which required them to elect between receiving a direct grant and an indirect grant. It was not, so far as I know, put on paper, but I do not think there is any dispute that such an assurance was in fact given, and was relied upon by those schools who elected to abandon the direct grant and received a deficiency grant through the local education authority. Their position under this Bill, if they become maintained schools, must be very seriously affected because, under Clause 59, they would not be permitted to charge fees. That being so, they would have to rely for finance entirely upon endowment and upon such grant as they received from the local education authority. Therefore unless my right hon. Friend permits these schools to revert to direct grant status they are going to be far more subject to control by the local education authorities than they ever have been in the past. That clearly involves a drastic change of status, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend what steps he proposes to take to implement the assurance given by the Board of Education that their status would not be affected by the change. It may well be that his reply will take us into the question of finance, and, therefore, cannot be fully debated until we reach Clause 93, but it would be a great help to the Committee, and certainly to me, if he would give some indication at this stage of what are his intentions.

Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that where this really arises is on Clause 93 (1, b). I know, however, that the hon. Gentleman has been feeling rather pent up on this question for some time—

Mr. Lindsay: And also some of the schools.

Mr. Butler: —and I gather that some other quarters take the same view. I will not go into the same detail as I would on the Clause on grants, but, speaking very generally, the hon. Gentleman must not under-estimate the benefits which a school derives from being on aided status, which we are in order in discussing on tins Clause. The financial benefits, for example, to a school on aided status, provided that we regulate satisfactorily the independent life of the school on the basis of the speech I have just made on this Clause, are very great indeed. I anticipate, indeed, that there will be several secondary schools who are at present on the direct grant list which will be so attracted by the offer of aided status and the increases in the realm of finance and maintenance involved, that they may well pass over happily to that status. For example, the whole of the salaries in an aided school will come out of public funds, and it is an advantage which governors should not readily set aside.
If the hon. Gentleman accepts my euphemistic description of aided status, I will for a moment turn my attention to his observations upon the direct grant status. I can only use the following general language at this stage. While not wishing to place any numerical restriction on the number of aided schools admitted to the direct grant list, I could not contemplate any general transfer of responsibility for the local provision of secondary education to the State, as I think that would be undesirable. The schools on the direct grant list depend for their financial resources on Exchequer grants. If the hon. Gentleman will believe me, such a general step would go far to remove the confidence of those responsible for education in their own localities, namely, the local authorities. I cannot guarantee, therefore, that there could be any wide transference of schools from one status to another, but naturally, as I said in my Second Reading speech, the Government will be ready to consider,


where valid grounds exist and where governors could undertake the necessary responsibility, to consider individual cases on their merits. That, I think, will be the best way of tackling this difficult subject. If the hon. Gentleman will rest content with that for the time being, he will see that whichever way the traffic flown—either from the direct grant list on to the aided status, or the other way round, or both—that there are advantages. But I cannot anticipate that there will be any very violent rush of traffic away from the local provision of secondary education because that, I think, would be undesirable.

Sir J. Mellor: Can the right hon. Gentleman give this assurance, that those schools who on that assurance between 1922 and 1926 abandoned their direct grant status, will not be in any worse position with regard to future arrangements than if they had retained direct grant status? I am only asking that their position shall not be prejudiced by having acted upon the assurance which they received from the Board of Education.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will realise that I am in some difficulty because I communicated with him saying that I would make a full statement on a later Clause. At this stage I can only refer to generalities, but I can say that it is not our desire to fill the breasts of the people responsible for these schools with apprehensions, fears or doubts, or to take away from them the possibility of a school transferring from this status to that. It may be necessary. I cannot go further than that, because I would like the governors of these schools fully to realise the implications of the set up of education as against the background of the talks of 1922 to 1926.

Sir W. Davison: Are we quite clear that each of these cases will be considered on its merits, and that where a school has been deriving its pupils from more than one local authority's area, although situated in a particular local authority area, if it is in a position to provide adequate finance and will not be tempted by the additional money it would receive by being a controlled school, it will have its case considered by the Board? The fact that some years ago such schools were induced to become aided schools, receiving grants, will not, I hope, prejudice

them in being semi-independent of the local authorities and receiving a direct grant from the Board when the latter are satisfied that the system of education is efficient and that proper provision for the pupils is made.

Mr. Butler: I think the best definition I can give the Committee as to the merits of the case is that merit does not only mean considering the matter from the angle of the school but also from the angle of the locality. We have to consider both. If my hon. Friend will accept that, I think he can feel satisfied that the matter will be properly understood.

Mr. Silkin: I think the President is dealing with this question on the right lines, but I would like him to give it a little more consideration. I understand that discussions are to take place with interested parties. Who will be the parties? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could enlarge on the general principles he hopes to lay down. I would like to impress upon him the necessity of the Committee having a decision on this matter before we part with this Bill. It is no use getting a White Paper when the Bill has been disposed of, and when we should not be in a position to influence the matter very much. The time to discuss a White Paper is while this Committee is in possession of the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not stick to the position that as regards the county secondary schools the articles of government can only be made by the local authority and approved by the Minister. After all, they are domestic matters and the local authorities can be trusted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sometimes."] There is a tendency to suggest that local authorities cannot be trusted to frame satisfactory rules of government. Well, if they cannot do that how much less can they be trusted with this Bill, the success of which depends upon their administration? The Minister took the right line, in dealing with county primary schools, in saying that the rules of management should be dealt with by the local authorities. I think the same should apply as regards the county secondary schools. While I do not object to the Minister having a voice in dealing with auxiliary schools I submit that the local education authorities should be in a position to control finance.
The articles of management should provide that local authorities should be in a


position to control the expenditure of auxiliary schools in a satisfactory manner. For instance, an auxiliary school may expend capital money out of accumulated funds which may, in itself, impose an additional burden on the local education authority. The school might want to build an extravagant swimming bath and might do so out of its own funds. But the maintenance of that bath will be a matter for the local education authority and that authority ought to have a voice in such expenditure. I therefore ask the Minister, when he comes to deal with articles of management, to ensure that local education authorities will have satisfactory control in such matters.

Sir P. Hannon: Surely the scheme cuts two ways. The local education authority, or the Minister, lays down the standard for the auxiliary school and imposes upon the governors of that school an obligation to provide, say, a swimming bath. Would that not be an obligation on the school?

Mr. Silkin: I am glad of that interruption, because it enables me to explain what I mean. The principle of a private swimming bath may be accepted but that bath has to be maintained. Suppose an auxiliary school is able to raise a large sum of money and build a bath which, in the opinion of a local education authority, is extravagant to maintain. The burden of maintaining it will be on the local education authority. All I am asking is that the authority should have a voice in saying whether this is reasonable or not.

Mr. Butler: I think I can answer the hon. Member's point very briefly. I attempted to outline the content of the principles which should be laid down for governing the lives of secondary schools. I do not think that at this stage it would be wise to develop them further. In regard to the people to be consulted I would be ready to initiate any sort of discussion with any bodies representative of the main interests concerned. We have not by any means covered the field yet, and until we have done so I think it would be rather like trying to agree about a time-table when all those who thought they should be consulted had not had the opportunity of being consulted. I do not want to be too precise until we have everybody with us in these discussions. As regards the date for producing this document, I do not want to be tied,

because I want to see how things develop. But it might be possible, in any case, to consider enlarging what I said in my speech, even though negotiations have not arrived at a complete conclusion and I will report at the earliest stage I can the lines on which we are proceeding. I cannot, however, guarantee that the ultimate negotiations will end by a particular date.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Managers of primary schools.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I propose to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), on which I think we can have a fairly comprehensive discussion.

Mr. C. Davies: I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, to leave out "four", and to insert "three".
Sub-section (1) of this Clause fixes the number of managers for county primary schools. These six managers are divided, so that where there is a minor authority they shall have two out of the six and the local education authority shall have the remaining four. Following, rightly, the principle that the local education authority has to foot the bill, that authority provides the majority of the management. There is the principle. We then come to Sub-section (3), where we have to deal with auxiliary primary schools. Here the principle is abandoned. Although the local education authority, with the assistance of the State, has to pay for everything except the bare walls and the roof, and all expenses in future have to be undertaken by the education authority, they are at once placed in the minority. The foundation managers are to be four, while the local authority education managers are to be only two. If there is a minor authority they appoint one and the managers of the local education authority appoint the other. There are only two for the publicly appointed body and four for the old foundation.
I sometimes feel that we are much less democratic than we were in the reign of King Edward I. The old dead hand is still governing us. I wish Members would read the Statute of Mortmain, which was passed in the time of King Edward I. We should look at these matters from the


point of the present and the future and not all the time be governed by something which happened in the past. Just because a number of public-spirited people started schools in the past, and have done great service, there is no reason why we should stick to the past now we are coming to new obligations, involving tremendously increased expenditure.
I think we have been extraordinarily reasonable in not asking that the majority should be publicly appointed. The right thing would be to do as we are doing in Sub-section (1), dealing with a minority party again publicly appointed. Possibly the right thing would be four to be appointed by the public authority and only two from the foundation, surely enough to bear in mind what the Financial Secretary has so often reminded us about, the traditions of the old school.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has moved the Amendment, though I do not quite sympathise with his desire that we should go back to the reign of Edward I. We are dealing with an extremely important point, the future composition of the bodies of managers of different classes of schools, and we all want them to be real bodies and not just formal bodies of so many units. I should regret it if they were just thought of in terms of majorities and minorities, because I do not think it will work out like that. As I understand it, it was the plan of the successive White Papers and of the Bill that, where you have an aided school, the foundation managers should still retain majority control. I am not satisfied with the Clause as it stands. I should like to make certain that in any aided school that remained in a single school area there was provision to ensure that at least one of the managers was a Free Church-man. I do not specially want to put that sort of thing into the Bill, because I do not much like statutory conditions of that kind, but I should like to see that the Clause would enable that to be done.
While I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment I understand that you, Mr. Williams, are willing to allow us to discuss on it the whole subject of the composition of the bodies of management of primary schools, and I have an Amend-

ment on the paper as regards the bodies of management of controlled schools. We should like to see—again I do not expect the Government will give this to us—that in a controlled school—the alternative type—the foundation managers should not be in a minority, though we do not assert that they should be in a majority. There is a point arising there which is more than arithmetical. The whole of the rest of the Bill is based on the figures given in this Clause, and there are certain safeguarding provisions by which representations may be made by the managers of different types of schools when questions are referred to them by the local education authority.
For instance, the composition of the body of managers has special importance in reference to Clause 19, where an auxiliary school cannot be compelled to join in a scheme for a unified body of management for several schools if the managers object. The power to object will clearly rest with the majority of managers, and it ought to be clearly understood that in controlled schools, as the Bill stands, no real safeguard exists in that Clause, because the local education authority will appoint the majority of managers and the Clause says that the managers may raise objection to a proposed action by the local education authority. That is very like a dog eating its own tail. That is why I ask that the Committee should give attention to the composition of the bodies of managers both in aided and controlled schools. In controlled schools, again, power is reserved to the managers to make representations to the local education authority as to the individual whom the authority proposes to appoint as head teacher. But clearly, if the managers who are in the majority are the nominees of the local authority, that does not give much safeguard to the foundation managers, who are supposed to be particularly concerned with the qualifications of the head teacher and his suitability to the school.
I do not believe we can fiddle about to much purpose with these proportions of managers, but need we really restrict ourselves by keeping this old limit of six managers for primary schools? On the governing bodies of secondary schools one can have an unlimited number. If there are many people interested, they will all have a chance of being appointed. With


the primary school, though there may be more than six people keenly interested, the law is apparently to say, "No, not more than six of you can take part in the management of the school." That seems to me to be out of keeping with the democratic purpose of the Committee and of the Bill, and I hope, in considering Amendments to the Clause, the Government will bear in mind the possibility of removing that limit of six, keeping the existing proportions but bringing forward its own Amendments on Report to give greater freedom of appointment.

Mr. Cove: Whenever I listen to the hon. Member, who, I understand, represents the Church of England schools, I feel very sympathetic towards the Minister. I have heard more than once the voice of the Church of England, in words kindly, nice and sympathetic, but in deeds giving nothing away—not merely giving nothing away but demanding more. If there is a party that comes in from the religious point of view it is the Church of England—far more than the Roman Catholics, certainly far more than the Nonconformists. The representative of the Church of England on the one hand says, "I am not prepared to agree to equal representation of managers in aided schools three and three," but at the same time refers to an Amendment that he has himself with regard to controlled schools, where he wants equal representation. He wants to retain a majority of the managers of aided schools and, on the other hand, he claims further representation on the controlled schools.
I ask the Church of England to make some contribution to the problem that confronts the Minister as far as reorganisation is concerned. You cannot reorganise the educational system if the Church of England is going to remain entrenched in these areas. They have given up nothing. The Minister has given more to the Church of England than to any other section. I have a feeling that he has given more to the Church of England with regard to making religious teaching and inspection compulsory. When is the Church of England going to make its contribution? When is it going to help the Minister to solve the problem? The Nonconformists have had nothing out of it. The Catholic Church has something but it is dissatisfied. Nearly 4,000 schools in single school areas are in the hands of the Church of England.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that in a Debate on proportions and numbers, the religious controversy will not be introduced.

Mr. Cove: The control of these schools is a vital thing. The proportion of managers is a vital thing in the governance of these schools. The Church of England gains tremendously out of the Bill. I ask the Church of England representatives not to come here with smooth, honeyed words but with concrete offers.

Earl Winterton: It will not hurt the hon. Member to hear a few hard words from other people. I happen to be a governor of a Church of England school. If he thinks that the kind of speech that he has made will facilitate the passage of the Bill, he is very much mistaken.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģlhes: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has said that those who represent the interests of the Anglican Church have not made any contribution. I am not concerned for the moment with their contribution towards the general progress of the Bill. I am more concerned with the fact that they have made no contribution whatsoever to the discussion of the Amendment. Not a single reason was supplied to justify this proportion, and the Committee was treated with contempt. The Church is not prepared to justify this great exception to the ordinary democratic rules in this country. In an aided school the community finds 95 per cent. of the capital cost and maintenance. We are, therefore, making a most reasonable suggestion. We are not demanding a full majority, but We suggest that it is elementary justice that at least half the members of the governing body should be placed there by the public which finds nearly all the money.

Sir W. Davison: Who provided these schools in the first instance when the State was not so generous as it is now, and who provided the funds for giving the education in them?

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: It is perfectly clear that at the time when the community was not prepared to be generous in this direction the Church did that, but it cannot make a claim on that ground for all time. It is because of that that the Committee has accepted so many of these concessions. If we went on the point of immediate equity there ought not to be


one of them. The Church has been given half the representation, and I should have expected to hear from those who speak for the Anglican Church some reason why they want a majority. Is it on religious grounds? If we look at the Bill we see that it would not matter much if they had no representation at all on religious grounds. They are protected in the teaching of their religion, in the religious tests of the teachers and in the use of the school for their own religious purposes. In an aided school they have got 100 per cent. statutory protection for their own denominational religion. Why, therefore, when Parliament is prepared to provide them with all this protection, should not half the members be nominated by the public who provide practically all the money?

Mr. Ede: We have not got back to the reign of Edward I, but we have been perilously near 1902 in some of the discussions that have gone on. The Noble Lord was not here in those days, but he came sufficiently soon afterwards to be well imbued by the spirit when he was serving his apprenticeship here.

Earl Winterton: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mean to be unfriendly. I was merely deprecating the line of argument of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), and was saying in effect that two can play at that game.

Mr. Ede: May I thank the Noble Lord for that interruption, because the game is not limited to two. There might be other people joining in from other angles we have not seen up to the moment. The issue raised here is whether in the aided school there shall be a majority of managers appointed by the foundation. The aided school is one in which the buildings and site have been provided by the foundation and where, up to date, the whole cost of maintaining the fabric has fallen on the foundation. In future half the cost of bringing the school up-to-date and maintaining the exterior of the fabric in a sound state of repair is to fall upon the foundation. The foundation is assured that the teaching given shall be in accordance with the trust deed by teachers who can be relied on to observe the trust deed faithfully. Quite clearly, as the managers are the people who appoint the teachers, we must ensure that there shall

be at the appointment of teachers a majority of the people who are pledged to secure the carrying out of the trust deed. I do not like religious tests for teachers or for anyone else, but, this being established by the law, we must be assured that the people at the meeting where the teachers are appointed shall be able to secure what this Bill says the trust shall be entitled to. On that ground it is not possible to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies).
The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) suggested that in the case of the controlled school there should be a move the other way whereby additional members are appointed to represent the foundation. Let us realise what happens in the future with regard to that school. The number of teachers who are to be appointed, subject to a religious test, is strictly limited by the Bill, and the approval of those teachers is left in the hands of the foundation managers. It is necessary to do that because they are in a minority on the body. The whole of the cost of bringing the school up to date and maintaining it afterwards falls upon the public. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that, the right of the foundation to secure its reserved teachers being approved by the foundation managers being preserved to them, they shall remain in a minority. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham then threw out another suggestion. It was that we were perhaps unduly limiting this Measure and the opportunities for some accommodation in the single-school areas by limiting the number of managers.
The Government will be prepared at the next stage of the Bill to propose an Amendment which will allow the number of managers to be increased, provided that the proportions in the Bill are maintained. That is to say, in the aided school two-thirds will be appointed by the foundation and one-third by the local authorities and, in the controlled school, two-thirds by the local authorities and one-third by the foundation. We shall not be prepared to put into the Clause anything which indicates that the people appointed by the local authorities are to be subject to any religious consideration. If there is to be accommodation in respect of the single-school areas, it must be made from the group of managers to


be appointed by the foundation. It by no means follows, because managers have been appointed by a local authority, that when there is a dispute between the local authority and the managers or the locality the managers take the side of the local authority. I have spent too many hours arguing with recalcitrant local authority managers as a member of a local education authority to think that that very often happens. Generally speaking, when it comes to a local dispute the local managers, whether appointed by the local authority or by the foundation, are racy of the soil and stand up pretty well to the county hall or the town hall as the case may be. This is a difficult subject which has given rise to great controversy in the past. We have endeavoured in this Bill to do something to remove that grievance, and we commend this Clause as it has been drafted because we believe that it enables all the issues that have been raised to-day to be dealt with on reasonable lines in accordance with the general wishes of the community.

Mr. Martin: Does the Amendment which the Government will introduce apply to the proportions in Sub-section (1) of this Clause with regard to major and minor local authorities?

Mr. Ede: It relates solely to the figures themselves. Some bodies will have to consist of multiples of six and other bodies of multiples of three.

Mr. Martin: That will apply all through the Clause?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir.

Mr. C. Davies: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) began his speech by sympathising with the President. I extend my sympathy much more to the Parliamentary Secretary. One knows from his past how much he must agree with the reasons I have advanced for this Amendment and how much he disagrees with the Bill. As some feeling has been engendered and a retort has come from the Noble Lord, I must say a few words about this question. It is a fundamental matter. It is the old question of representation going with taxation. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a description of the cost that will fall upon the foundation. It is very limited, something like 3 to 4 per cent. of the total expenditure.
The rest has to be provided by the public. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Secretary has to stand at that Box and justify the control, expenditure and management of that money by foundation managers who will provide only some 3 to 4 per cent. of it. One has to ask under whose instructions the Parliamentary Secretary is so acting. It is contrary to the wishes of this Committee and of all democratic institutions.
There is somebody calling this tune. I cannot really quarrel with the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, which was: "When is some concession going to be made?" If we dare to ask for a concession we are at once accused of raising religious controversy. We have to submit quietly. As I said earlier, the Church of England have been, throughout the years, in charge of the citadel and they have all these matters under their control. From time to time concessions have had to be made, but the Bill is not the kind of Bill that Would have been introduced—this Clause, for example—by the party represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, or by the Liberal Party. It is fundamental that representation should go with taxation, and they would have said that the majority in this instance must be publicly appointed. I am asking for a mere half and half, and not for a majority. In this case, because of what the foundation have done in the past, they want to be asked to do nothing in the future, except to have regard to the appointment of teachers, where they have the major selection.
I rest myself upon the fact that something like 97 per cent. of the cost is to fall on the public and the other 3 per cent. on the foundation. Because somebody was charitable 200 or 300 years ago, we are asked to saddle the future with these proposals. I beg the Committee to have regard to the fundamental question at issue that those who pay the piper, that is to say the public, who have to pay 97 per cent. of the cost, should have at least half the representation. There is one other thing. May I give a warning to the Committee? We are anxious to see the Bill carried through because of the improvements which it contains and which we hope will benefit the children of this country. That is why we are anxious, but this is not the Bill


that we expected or desired, because it continues a system to which we are fundamentally opposed. We are anxious to see the Bill go through and we accept it, but we ask for a little more consideration from those who have for so long occupied the citadel without any concession.

Mr. Walter Edwards: I should not like the discussion on the Amendment to conclude with the impression that only one representative of the Church is interested. Hon. Members will observe from the wording of the Clause that this is not just an Anglican matter but one affecting all other denominations. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) remark that the Catholics have not got a lot out of the Bill. From the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) one might run away with the impression that no sacrifices and no expenses are being paid by the parents who send their children to these denominational schools, and that all the Catholic schools in this country were put up many years ago from a fund given by a generous donor. The position is exactly the reverse, as has frequently been stated here. Catholic parents have contributed no less than £3,500,000 in the last 25 years and have built many good schools, every bit as good as council schools. When the Bill becomes an Act, those Catholic parents will pay exactly the same rates and taxes as people who are sending their children to council schools. I think they are not asking too much in asking for the retention of what they have had in the past. That is all it is. There is no concession.
All the talk of democracy can sound very nice, but democracy can work both ways. If rights that we have held for some time are going to be denied us, and in view of the fact that we have to find more money than we did before 1939, I do not think it will be very fair to the Catholics. There may be a different position for others. I maintain that we have a very fair case indeed for the retention of what we have had in the past, and I hope that the Government will not give way on the matter.

Mr. A. Bevan: I have been very sympathetic to many points of view put by the Catholics on this Bill and, when we

come to discuss the position later on, I hope to be able to say something about it. I thought, until my hon. Friend spoke just now, that the Catholic point of view was that, as a much larger proportion of the money is to be found by public authority, that provision should be accompanied by a much greater proportion of public control. Do I understand that that is not my hon. Friend's position now?

Mr. Walter Edwards: The position is that we have to provide a much larger amount than we have found in the past.

Mr. Bevan: No, that is not the point. Let me ask about the principle, leaving the Bill alone for a moment. If 97½ per cent. of the money for Catholic schools were provided by the State, would my hon. Friend still insist upon denominational control?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think that anybody would say that 97½ per cent. is the figure, so far as the post-war period is concerned.

Mr. Bevan: Say 100 per cent. then. According to my hon. Friend's argument it is not the amount of money that is being provided at the moment that matters, but the fact that these are ancient rights. Let me understand this point, because it will influence my decision very much in this matter. I have been very sympathetic to the Catholic point of view, and I have considered that the Catholics were getting a raw deal under the Bill, which deprives me of the argument I used to have against providing additional assistance for Catholic schools. If I follow my hon. Friend's argument aright, he is shifting me back to my former position. I would like to know this: If 100 per cent. were granted, would he then still consider that the fact that Catholics had provided schools in the past, and that there were some ancient rights connected with them, means that Catholics would still insist on having control of the schools?

Mr. Edwards: It is a little bit different from what my hon. Friend is trying to make out. We have stated on previous Amendments that we were prepared to accept the Scottish system, under which we should have the opportunity of having our denominational teachers, but that is not the question of managers from the local authority and from the foundation.

Mr. Bevan: No, my hon. Friend is not meeting the issue at all. Under the Scottish system, the principle is that the local authority shall provide Catholic teachers, and if there are not enough Catholic teachers they can provide other teachers; but it is the local authority who do it and not the managers at all. I was a manager of a Catholic school for some years. It was certainly an anomalous situation. I represented the local authority, and I am bound to say that I found my situation embarrassing on many occasions. As usual, I was in a minority. I must confess that I still do not understand my hon. Friend's argument. What we want is that the extension of public control should be proportionate to the extension of public financial obligation. I should have thought that would be accepted by all parties. All that we are, in fact, now asking, is that, in view of the fact that we are increasing public money for these schools, public control should accompany the extension of public funds, by a proportion of half to half—although we are providing far more than 50 per cent. of the money.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The hon. Member keeps on referring to public money and to percentages. Does he contend that public money is provided by Nonconformists only?

Mr. Bevan: No.

Sir J. Lamb: You cannot talk about public money.

The Deputy-Chairman: For some little while I have been wondering how far this discussion might be running away with a discussion on a future part of the Bill. To discuss how much money is to be found by different sections of the com-

Division No. 6.
AYES.



Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Bull, B. B.
Davison, Sir W. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Burden, T. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)


Apsley, Lady
Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Eccles, D. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Ede, J. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Barnes, A. J.
Cape, T.
Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Channon, H.
Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Cobb, Captain E. C.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Beech, Major F. W.
Colegate, W. A.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)


Beechman, N. A.
Colman, N. C. D.
Everard, Sir W. Lindsay


Beit, Sir A. L.
Conant, Major R. J. E.
Foot, D. M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Foster, W.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Gates, Major E. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Gibson, Sir C. G.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Glanville, J. E.

munity is certainly encroaching upon a future discussion.

Mr. Bevan: I have not used any such argument at all, Mr. Williams. This is public money provided by Parliament and not by denominations.

The Deputy-Chairman: I was referring to the argument of the hon. Member who interrupted.

Mr. Bevan: Exactly, I agree.

The Deputy-Chairman: This may be a convenient time to warn the Committee that the discussion is getting pretty wide.

Mr. Bevan: One of the difficulties is to be able to discuss one part of the Bill without discussing another part of it. What in fact we are discussing is the amount of control which the public authority should exercise over this category of school. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend proposes to divide the Committee on this matter, because once more the Government are unable to make any concession to the Committee as they have commitments outside the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary did not really convince the Committee of the strength of his argument, because he had very little argument to commend what he had to say; but the bargain has been struck, and the Committee can make no modifications whatsoever of the bargain. I therefore hope that my hon. and learned Friend will press the matter, when I shall support him. Unless we insist upon this principle we are losing all control of the educational structure.

Question put, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 17.

Gledhill, G.
Linstead, H. N.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Little, Sir E. Graham- (London Univ.)
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Grant-Ferris, Wing-Comdr. R.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leftus, P. C.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Silkin, L.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gretton, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Stokes, R. R.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
MacLaren, A.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Manningham-Buller Major R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Guy, W. H.
Martin, J. H.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Mathers, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tinker, J. J.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Molson, A. H. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Montague, F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Turton, R. H.


Hubbard, T. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's)
Viant, S. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


James Wins-Com. A (Well'borough)
Oliver, G. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


James, Admiral Sir W. (Ports'th, N.)
Pearson, A.
Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.


Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Petherick, Major M.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Jennings, R.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Jewson, P. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Keatinge, Major E. M.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Keeling, E. H.
Prescott, W. R. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.


Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Price, M. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Pym, L. R.
Woodburn, A.


Key, C. W.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Kimball, Major L.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Wragg, H.


Kirby, B. V.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
York, Major C.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Riley, B.



Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Leach, W.
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)
Mr. Boulton and


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Mr. A. S. L. Young.


Liddall, W. S.
Rothschild, J. A. de





NOES.


Cove, W. G.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Owen, Major Sir G.
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


Gruffydd, W. J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Hardie, Agnes
Richards, R.



Harvey, T. E.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Mr. Clement Davies and


Loverseed, J. E.
Watson, W. McL.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan.

Mr. E. Harvey: I beg to move, in page 15, line 37, at the end, to add:
(d) the instrument of management for every county primary school and for every auxiliary school shall provide that at least one manager shall be a representative of the parents.
At different stages in the discussion of this Bill, I think from all quarters of the Committee there has come an expression of appreciation of the parents' part in the education of the child, and I think that that is something on which, above all differences, we can unite and which we all, therefore, ought to try to express in the structure of our educational system as hitherto we have failed to do. We want the parents of the children to feel that the school is their school, just as the children feel that it is their school, and this would be best done if it could be provided that at least one representative of the parents should be actually a manager of the school.
In the case of one of the latest developments, that of the nursery schools, a most encouraging feature has been the immense interest of the parents in the school, the way in which they have come to visit it and help it. Too often in the past they have not had the same intimate relationship with, and interest in the elementary schools attended by their children. If they are entrusted with the duty of having a representative on the management of the school, that will provide the opportunity of bringing together the parents at intervals. It will bring them into closer contact with the staff of the school. It will make them take a wider, deeper interest in it, and, on all these grounds I hope that the President may see his way to accept, if not the wording, the principle of the Amendment, that the parents should be associated with the management. It may be said that, in some cases, it may be said that the parents are not


equipped educationally to do that. I do not think that is an argument which should be admitted. They will be educated in the process of their association with the work of the school, and it will give a great opportunity for civic service of the most valuable kind to thousands of our citizens throughout the length and breadth of the land.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I wish to support this Amendment. I would like to point out that as the Bill now stands it would seem quite probable that the child from the age of two years to the age of 18 will be in the atmosphere of the school and not the home, and that the home will be regarded, rather as a place of board and lodging and nothing else. I hope that some degree of parental interest and responsibility may be retained in the way proposed by the Amendment, which will counteract this unhappy estrangement from home influences.

Mr. Martin: I also should like to support the Amendment. For some 12 or 15 years I have been a representative of a major authority on a management committee, and I have been impressed by two facts. One was that the major authority tended to send representatives who were interested in the academic side of education, and the representatives of the minor authority were useful, not so much for that function, as for acting as a liaison between the authority and the school. Not every headmaster and headmistress is equally happy in his or her relationship with the authority and not every authority is equally happy in its relationship with the headmaster or headmistress of the school concerned. To have in any particular area a number of people who actually represent that area, who live in the streets from which the children come, is extraordinarily useful in bringing the whole body of parents in that area into touch with the schools and interpreting the ideas which the teachers put over, and also in communicating the feelings of the parents, who are often inarticulate themselves, to the teachers. These often do not live in the locality and do not sense the difficulties and troubles which parents experience. This seems, I know, an insignificant matter, but I am sure that it is of immense importance. These insigni-

ficant things often have great validity behind them. I remember from my own schooldays an old Latin tag, Res angusta domi, which may be loosely interpreted as "How important are the small things of life." I am certain that our success in local government, national government, and other sorts of government is due to the fact that we have a proper sense of the value of small things of this nature.

Captain Cobb: I fully sympathise with the principles involved in this Amendment, and I think it would be an excellent thing for every body of managers to include somebody who was a representative of the parents, somebody to whom those parents could come with their difficulties and complaints. But who is to select the representative of the parents? It seems to me that that is a very great difficulty. Where you have an effective parents' association connected with every school, the matter is comparatively simple; but where, as in certainly the majority of primary schools, there is no such association, it is going to be very difficult to find anybody who can be said to be a suitable representative of the parents. Another question is, where is that manager coming from? Is he to be taken off the foundation managers, or to be taken off the authority managers, or is he to be an extra? I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) could answer some of these questions. If he could, it would help me to make up my mind.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the hon. and gallant Member not agree that the local authorities, in choosing a parent, could look round, and if they saw a good Labour man or a good Communist, that would be a suitable choice?

Mr. Lindsay: I put my name to this Amendment because, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb), I am in complete sympathy with it, but I think he has raised important objections. Unless there is a parents' association it will be difficult to make a choice. I think that, over a large part of the country, it is the exception to find among the managers, parents of the children who actually attend the schools, and, in consequence, something absolutely vital is lost.

Captain Cobb: The Amendment asks that there shall be a manager who is representative of the parents—not necessarily a parent.

Mr. Lindsay: I know; either a parent or a representative of the parents. But it is an exception to find anybody who can be called even a representative of the parents. Unfortunately, the managers seem to come from a different stratum of society. Therefore, I support the spirit of this Amendment, but I am well aware that there are very great difficulties.

Mr. Ede: The Government are in complete sympathy with the idea behind this Amendment. We desire the closest possible association between the parents who send their children to the schools, and the day-to-day activities of the schools. We welcome anything that will tend to make the association between the parents and the schools closer than it has been in the past. Much has been done in recent years, by parents' days and by all sorts of invitations to parents to come in to see exhibitions, and so on. Our difficulty is the question of machinery, which was pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb). Is this representative to be one of the foundation managers; is it to be the parish council representative or the county council representative, if we have the existing proportions? Any effort to upset those proportions will, as has just been demonstrated, lead to some contention. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) that this is an exceptional matter, even at present. I think that in a good many areas, even now, a representative of the parents is chosen. In my own county the county councillors, in suggesting representatives, are charged to see that one of the managers shall be somebody who is reckoned to be representing the parents.

Mr. Lindsay: How do they determine that?

Mr. Ede: It must be left to the managers. Some people say that it must be a parent; then, when that person's last child goes out of the school, that person ceases to be a representative of the parents, although he may never have been more truly representative of the parents than at that particular moment. Other people say, "This person is

associated with such-and-such an organisation with which a majority of the parents are associated, and he is a suitable person." I hope that this discussion will reach the ears of local education authorities and others when they are making appointments, and that they will endeavour to see that the managing body of a school is not, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, drawn from a different social stratum from that in which the pupils of the school are found, but that some, at least, of the managers will be people who live the daily life of the village or town, who are in close association with the parents, and can make the wishes of the parents known to the managers and to the teachers. I am a little suspicious sometimes of persons nominated by the parents' association, because it is not always the best person who is put forward, but the most thrusting person, who thinks he has to justify his existence by making as much trouble as he can. I have had one or two unfortunate experiences of that kind myself. But I would like my right hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) to feel that the Government are in thorough sympathy with his view. I think he would admit that he has suggested no machinery by which this can be carried out, but I hope that note will be taken of this discussion in the offices of local education authorities, and among the people who are responsible for nominating foundation managers, and in that way the spirit of his Amendment may be mare largely met in the future than it has been in the past.

Mr. Harvey: I ought to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he has expressed sympathy with this Amendment. I think that the fact that he has taken that view, on behalf of the Board of Education, will be of real assistance in encouraging the election of managers who are really representative of the parents. I think he might have gone a little further and given an assurance that if there is any circular of recommendations sent out by the Board of Education to authorities in connection with the Bill, it will contain a suggestion that, where possible, there should be someone who was representative, in the true sense of the word, of parents. I deliberately did not suggest machinery, because there might be different ways in which, in different districts and in different schools, the best


persons would be selected. In many cases they would be parents or people who had had children at the school in recent years. In other cases, they would be trusted persons in touch with the parents. I am grateful for the way the Government have accepted the idea underlying the Amendment, and, in view of that, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Brooke: This is the one opportunity I shall have to express my gratitude to the Government for the announcement they made that, on the Report stage, they will withdraw this silly restriction of the number of managers for a primary school to six. It is a little change, but a change which may have valuable results in improving the quality of education. For that reason, we ought not to let the opportunity pass without expressing thanks to the Government for a far-sighted decision.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Governors of secondary schools.)

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper, in the name of Sir ADAM MAITLAND: In page 15, line 41, to leave out "local education authority may determine," and insert "instrument may provide."

The Deputy-Chairman: As the hon. Member is not present, and as there is a further Amendment down, on much the same lines, in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), perhaps the hon. Member would move that Amendment.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, at the end, to insert:
Provided that not less than one-third include parents and other persons not being members of the local authority.
Whether this Amendment is on the same lines as the other I am not quite certain, but it is very much the same as the previous Amendment. Its object is to secure that parents and persons with educational experience who are co-opted shall be put on the governing bodies of these schools. I do not think I need add anything to that, as I made a speech earlier to-day which covered much of this ground, and I want to save time.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it your intention, Mr. Williams, that the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson)—in page 15, line 42, at the end, to insert:
Provided that a majority of such persons shall be appointed by the county district council in the area served by such school"—
shall be discussed at the same time?

The Deputy-Chairman: There are four Amendments which cover much the same point—the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland); the Amendment which has now been moved; an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) in line 42; and an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), also in line 42—and I think we can discuss them together.

Mr. Butler: The mover of the original Amendment is not in his place, and there is nobody to move the Amendment. Can we discuss it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have called the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) to move his Amendment. They are much the same, and we can discuss them together.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford and others, including myself, rather different from the other Amendments which you have mentioned? I want to be quite clear whether you wish it to be discussed with the Amendment which you have called, or at some other time.

The Deputy-Chairman: I called this particular Amendment in the hope that the four Amendments would be discussed together. That is definitely my Ruling and any point arising should come in on this Amendment.

Sir J. Mellor: As the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson)—in page 15, line 42, at end, insert:
Provided that a majority of such persons shall be appointed by the county district council in the area served by such school"—
is to be now discussed I would like to call attention to its terms. It is to secure that a majority of the persons who shall constitute the body of governors shall be


appointed by the county district council in the area to be served by the school. That will mean that the local education authority, having the power to determine the manner in which the body of governors shall be appointed, shall be limited to that extent and so secure in any event that the county district council, whose area is served by the school, shall have a majority representation upon the body of governors. This is of considerable importance, because it is the anxiety of many people, and, I think, of the Government, to preserve local interest. We have discussed at other times the relationship between county councils and county district councils in regard to the future arrangements under this Bill. I do not want now to indulge in a sort of Second Reading discussion upon the respective positions of county councillors and countydistrict councillors, but it is clear that the county district councillors are far more closely in touch with the people in the county districts than are the county councillors who represent that district on the county council. That is a matter of experience. It is partly due to the much greater interest taken by the local newspapers in the proceedings of the county district councils than in the proceedings of the county councils. The people who are really concerned—the parents—will be much more familiar with their representatives on the county district councils than with their representatives on the county councils. Therefore, if the say in the constitution of the body of governors really rests with county district councils, there will be far more local confidence and we shall preserve local interest in a far more satisfactory way. Although I cannot move this Amendment, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a satisfactory assurance on this point.

Mr. A. Bevan: It does not seem to me that this discussion has gone very much further. Consultation now depends largely on schemes which will be drawn up later on. I understand that there will be a county divisional executive, and various schemes drawn up by these managing bodies will have their fixed place. I should have thought that it would have been the desire of the Board of Education and certainly of local authorities, to identify with local schools as many local people as possible and not to draw them from other areas where they

cannot possibly have much interest in the administration of these schools.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has suggested that these matters will be dealt with under the scheme. I do not think that they will be dealt with only under the schemes of local administration, because we desire that each of the schools, as far as possible, and within reasonable limits, should have an independent life of its own and have a governing body. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) that we do not want to restrict in one set form the way in which these schemes for governing bodies shall be made up. I imagine that in most cases, from such experience as I have had, the majority of the people will come from the locality. I do not find that they divide themselves up on the governing body between county representatives and county district representatives. Once they get on to the governing body they are all genuinely concerned with promoting the best life of the school that is possible. I have known this happen: when, for some reason or other, the proportion of people appointed by one body or another has been altered, the first meeting after the reorganisation has resulted in the same old faces in the same old places, but representing different people and carrying on in much the same old way without having regard to whether they were appointed by the town council or the county council. I imagine, as I said in an earlier discussion to-day, that we shall find most of these governing bodies will be constituted, so many people to be appointed by the county council and so many to be appointed by the local district council or councils served by the school, some other person appointed to represent the universities, and possibly one or two other people to be appointed from other interests who, either from a historical or some other reason, had some connection with the school. It might tie the hands of the people drawing up the scheme if they had to make certain that a majority of the people should be appointed from one district.

Mr. Bevan: I thought my idea was rejected. To which scheme is reference now being made?

Mr. Ede: The instrument of government for the school.

Mr. Bevan: Which the local authority may determine?

Mr. Ede: Which the local education authority, that is the county council or county borough council, make for county schools. They have responsibility placed upon them and are responsible for financing the school and they have to draw it up. I suppose that they might, in the unwise exercise of that discretion, decree that everybody should be a member of the appointing council. I cannot help thinking that, in a county area, it would result in never being able to get a quorum at the governors' meeting. That would be the first practical objection. If we rule that out as unlikely in a county area—the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Tamworth is only concerned with county areas, because there are no county district councils in county boroughs—the wisest possible thing to do is to leave this matter to be dealt with reasonably. My right hon. Friend has promised that with regard to the whole question of the government of secondary schools he is going to lay down certain general principles which will have to be observed, and I am sure one of the general principles required will be that there shall be active association between the district and the school, the district being that in which the school is situated or the district it serves, which is not always the same thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) raised the point that was partly covered by the last Amendment which we discussed on the previous Clause—the question of the appointment of parents and other persons not being members of the local authority. There, again, we desire that educational influences from the district shall be brought to bear on the school. The fixing of any exact proportion might sometimes cause difficulty and it would be unwise to lay down such a proportion. We accept the view that these governing bodies should be constituted from as wide an area of people in sympathy with secondary education as possible, and in the main, in the past, the local education authorities have endeavoured to secure the recruitment of suitable people to these bodies.

Mr. Lindsay: Will there be a guarantee that the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman about the general principles

will be covered? I want this to be made clear. If one takes London, and there is a vacancy in a certain area for a county secondary school, it is the person who is next on the Labour or other party whip who is made a governor of the school. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but I want it to be possible for a person interested in education in that area also to be brought in.

Mr. Silkin: There is no list of potential people. Whenever there is a vacancy, a person is chosen on his merits on educational grounds.

Mr. Lindsay: I took the trouble to make special inquiries about this matter, and it is the next person, or the person on the party ticket. He may be interested in education but not always. There are masses of people about who are interested in education, and we want to see them given a chance in education.

Mr. Bevan: I am a little more frightened now than before, and I will tell the Committee why. We are going to have a considerable conflict between the extinguished Part III authorities and the county councils about the local schemes to be drawn up. I have a Part III authority in my area and I have been telling them, perhaps wrongly, that, under the delegated powers which will arise when the schemes are drawn up, not only will they not lose their administrative interest in education but there will be a possibility that they will be able to interest themselves also in the administration of secondary schools from which they are now excluded.

Mr. Ede: As authorities?

Mr. Bevan: Not as authorities but as individuals concerned with education. They say that the Part III authorities are to be extinguished and that they are going to be taken over by the county authority. They are very keen about education and they may or may not themselves have a chance of being included in the schemes, and, certainly, they may not have a chance at all of having any interest in the secondary schools in the area, of which there will be a considerable number, if the provisions of the Bill are carried out. The Minister may draw up general principles but he will be stopped applying them if these words are carried out:
The instrument of government for every county secondary school shall provide for the constitution of a body of governors consisting


of such number of persons appointed in such manner as the local education authority may determine.
I can quite see that, first of all, you are going to have an incipient antagonism between the extinguished Part III authority members and the county council over the content of the new scheme, and one of the by-products of that unhappiness may be that the county councils will exclude from the board of governors of secondary schools any of those individuals who have been taking part in the controversy and who are members of Part III authorities.

Captain Cobb: Several of the hon. Member's Friends have told the Committee to-day that the local education authority can be trusted always and every way. The hon. Member is now arguing against that.

Mr. Bevan: No, I myself took part in a Division just now in which I wanted the local authority to have more control. Nothing at all that I am saying will diminish the financial control of the county authority. We are talking about administrative organisation, not financial control at all. We are concerned that a county school shall have its own governing body vitally associated with it and interested in the life of the secondary school, but, at the same time, we want to be sure that the county authority will not be able to override any local claims. They will do that if these words become part of the Act and that would stop the Minister from interfering at all with the constitution of the governing body.

Mr. Loftus: I only intervene for a few moments because of remarks made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), who appears to think of a governing body in party terms. I have been a member of an education authority for many years and I have never known party considerations to enter into the appointment of a governor of a secondary school. In reply to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who asked about members of Part III authorities, we have 18 governors—12 representing the borough and six appointed by the county council. The appeal I would make to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. There are men working in these local authorities who have years of experience, and, while I

accept his assurance that local authorities will engage their services in the future, could we not have some phrase making it more or less obligatory that local authorities should consult with the district authority so as to ensure that the services of these administrators shall be used in the future?

Mr. Lipson: I want to be consistent and say again that, as I advocated earlier, we should continue to trust the local authorities. In reply to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), these secondary school governors have hitherto been appointed by the county education committee, because they have administered secondary education. My experience is that, when there is a vacancy, it is the usual thing to appoint a governor from the area concerned. I think there is a very strong claim for the local county councillor to be appointed to the school in his area, and, as a matter of fact, the practice in one local authority which I know is that, when there is a vacancy for a governor of a secondary school, the senior county councillor, after consultation with his colleagues, is asked to name one of his colleagues who would be best fitted to serve, and this recommendation has to be approved by the county authority.

Sir J. Mellor: I am hardly reassured by what the Parliamentary Secretary said. There has often been a history of a certain amount of discord between county district councils that have been Part III authorities and the county councils. There has often been friction in other matters, and a certain amount of antagonism in the past, That may not immediately disappear, and, therefore, I think that it is necessary to have close regard to the words of this paragraph, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale pointed out. What the Parliamentary Secretary said rather conveyed to my mind the idea that he looked to the instrument to secure adequate representation to the county district council. The instrument, if I read these words in the correct way, does not seem to me to do that. The instrument enables the local education authority to decide the manner in which these people are to be appointed. That is, surely, leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the local education authority, and though the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made this quite


clear I think we should have a very clear answer on this point. I cannot see that the Government, whatever their desire may be, will have any influence over the matter, which is entirely, as I read it, in the hands of the local education authority.

Mr. Silkin: Does not the Minister have to approve the instrument? If the instrument provides for unsuitable representation on the governors, he can then deal with it.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), but the Minister does not make the instrument in the case of the county school. It is the instrument which we are discussing. If I may deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) about its relationship to the divisional administration, if he will look at page 81 of the Bill he will see that, in paragraph (2) of Part 3 of the First Schedule, beginning at line 28, the Divisional Executive is formed:
For the purpose of exercising on behalf of the authorities, in such of the divisions as may be specified in the schemes, such functions relating to primary and secondary education as may be so specified:
Let us assume that, among the functions not delegated, was that of the appointment of the governors of a county secondary school. The Ebbw Vale urban district, in the case in which the hon. Member of Ebbw Vale is interested, would make representations to the Minister that the delegation was incomplete, and at that stage, therefore, it would be possible for them to make representations that they were being unfairly treated by the county council. I think that also partly answers the point put to me by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). May I say that one cannot have served on an urban council and then on a county council without knowing that there are occasions when acute friction arises between these two bodies, but, by and large, in the country, in all administrative matters like this, I think it will be found that reasonable counsels prevail, especially with the county council and the county district councils.
I suggest that the experience of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) in regard to the way county council representation is made is a pretty general one
.

The county councillors for the area covered by the school are asked to meet together and recommend someone who is a suitable person. They may choose one of their own members. Provided that the actual county council representation is not overloaded, surely that is all to the good, and there should be direct representation of the county council on the governing body. The words used by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) show that, in another part of the country, that is, in fact, the practice, and a very important county council has had responsibility in the past for the administration of higher education in an important borough. There is a scheme by which this representation is arranged on the basis of six from the county council, five appointed by the county district councils, with three others co-opted and one appointed by the University. That kind of arrangement is the one generally adopted, although the actual numbers may vary. I am quite sure that any county council that may have been in doubt as to the wishes of the House will have learned its lesson from to-day's discussion, and I suggest that this is one of the matters in which we must leave in the Act some responsibility on the local authority, some power of initiative and some power of discretion, and this House, I am quite sure, has no reason to fear that county councils are likely to be either revolutionary or hostile bodies to the cause of secondary education.

Mr. Bevan: It is no use for hon. Members to be ready to brush this aside, because I want to know what is the meaning of what the hon. Gentleman has now said. In the original statement, I said I thought that the schemes to be drawn up, which will, subsequently, have to be submitted for the approval of the Minister, would include the county council, and he said "No," because it is intended that county councils shall have managing bodies of their own.

Mr. Ede: Surely the hon. Member means county secondary schools.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly, that is what we are now dealing with. I said originally that the divisional executive schemes, to which reference is made in Part III of the First Schedule, would include local secondary schools. I was informed by the hon. Gentleman that I was wrong. I


then pointed out that, if I was wrong, the language of Clause 18 places the absolute authority in the hands of the county council, and that nothing the Minister wishes can have the slightest effect on what they do. I want to know which now prevails.
It now appears from Part III of the Schedule:
This Part of this Schedule shall not apply to any local education authority which is the council of a county borough.
The hon. Gentleman referred me to these words:
schemes … for the purpose of exercising on behalf of the authorities, in such of the divisions, as may be specified in the schemes, such functions relating to primary and secondary education as may be so specified.
But under the language of Clause 18 the secondary schools are specifically excluded. Now which part of the Bill prevails? Because there is obviously conflict here. I do not want to be contentious.

Mr. Ede: No, I am quite sure the hon. Member is trying to elucidate a somewhat complicated matter. Now the instrument of government for county schools is drawn up by the local education authority. It is the function of the local education authority that needs to be delegated.

Mr. Bevan: Oh, yes.

Mr. Ede: But there is no obligation to delegate it. However, I do not think that was the point which was really interesting the Committee at the time I spoke. They were interested in the point of who is to appoint the members of the governing body once the instrument of government has been drawn. That was the point to which I was directing my attention, and the attention of the hon. Member, when I referred to the second paragraph of Part III of the First Schedule. One of the functions of the local education authority may be the appointment of a certain number of the governors. That is a function which could be delegated to the county district council, and if the instrument of government did not provide for the county district council nominating, of its own volition—apart from any scheme of divisional administration—a certain number of governors, the county district council could complain when the scheme was submitted, that they were not able to discharge any of the functions of the

county council with respect to the appointment of governors of secondary schools. In that way, it would be brought within the notice of my right hon. Friend and he would be able, either to direct that the functions should be delegated by amending the scheme, or to make such other representations to the county council as to ensure that the county district council would have some effective representation on the governing body.

Mr. Bevan: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I appreciate very much the complexities of the task that he has in hand, but I am bound to say, and the Members of the Committee would agree with me, that there remains a conflict between the two sections of the Bill. Let us suppose that the county council has drawn the instrument of government for a secondary school, in accordance with the powers conferred by Clause 18. Supposing that that instrument provided for no representation whatsoever from the members of the Part III authorities, in accordance with their powers here, but they said "Mr. and Mrs. So-and-So shall be members of the body, and X.Y.Z. shall be there." The Minister cannot say a word to them under Clause 18, for they have drawn up their instrument of government. Then, in the meantime, the local schemes have been drawn up in accordance with the language that the hon. Member and myself have read out twice, which is supposed to include both secondary and primary education. In that scheme, no provision would be made for the Part III authority to have representation on the Board of Governors of the secondary school in the terms of the instrument already drawn up by the county authority. What power would my right hon. Friend have under Clause 18 to interfere? Because, although he appears to have power here, it is taken away in Clause 18.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps I can help. These things are very difficult, but the Committee are getting a little muddled between the Part III authority which has certain duties and powers delegated to it at the end of the Bill, and the question of this instrument which comes in Clause 18. I will try to speak without reference to papers and I would explain it like this. What the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is worried about is that a representative of his Part III authority,


in the future, might not, in the case of a county secondary school, in which a representative of that borough was interested, be able to be on the governing body of that secondary school owing to the fact that the power is placed by the Bill in the hands of the county council. That is his problem and I must try to help him.
The position as I see it is this, that the scheme as between the Part III authority and the county council—and my remarks are of general, not particular application—is made as between those two units, and in the case of an excepted district, it is made on the initiative of the Part III authority itself. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's case is the case of an excepted district. It is what is known as an ordinary divisional executive. In that case, the scheme of arrangement of powers as between the two, especially in regard to this sort of question dealing with secondary education, is made between the two bodies with the initiative lying with the county council. But it is possible for the divisional executive to express its views and, in the event of the divisional executive not being satisfied, it is possible for the member to go to the Minister. If it is not possible, when we reach that part of the Bill, I intend to make it clear that it is possible for the question to go to the Minister.
I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that if the smaller place is not sufficiently keen on getting decent burghers and citizens represented on its secondary schools at the time the scheme is made, if it is not so keen as to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister, then that place cannot really be fully awake, and the opportunity given to the hon. Gentleman and his friends is at the time of the making of the scheme of local administration. When they do not feel they have their position secured in regard to their secondary schools, they say so to their county council. If the county council bullies them and says "No," they must so arrange their machinery that the case comes to the Minister. It is that case I have been discussing outside and inside this House, and it is that case I want to meet—the opportunity for the Minister to come in, in a case of the minor authority feeling aggrieved. I will try to meet the hon. Member in the matter. I think it is already in the Schedule, but if not, I shall try to see that there is a power of appeal to the Minister.

Mr. Bevan: I am very grateful, indeed, because the point is, if the county council says "Mind your own business" under Clause 18, then the Minister must arm himself with powers in the later stages of the Bill.

Mr. Butler: I shall simply want to see that the scheme of education is so arranged that the hon. Gentleman's friends do not feel themselves aggrieved.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the Minister intend to take power so that if a county district council makes complaint that it is not getting sufficient representation on a body of governors, he will then be in a position to interfere with the terms of the instrument or the exercise of powers under that instrument by the county council so as to secure that the county district council shall have adequate representation?

Mr. Butler: Yes, provided the hon. Gentleman understands that the time for the aggrieved district to see to these matters is when its scheme of education in regard to secondary education is drawn up. If he does it at that time I can come in and help.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. C. Davies: I beg to move, in page 15, line 46, at the end, to insert:
after consultation with the local education authority concerned.
This deals with auxiliary schools. The first part deals with the county secondary school and, as the Committee will be aware, in the case of auxiliary secondary schools, they are to be conducted in accordance with the articles of government made in the case of auxiliary schools by an order of the Minister under Clause 16 (3). This provides that the instrument of government made by a Minister for every auxiliary secondary school shall provide for the constitution of a body of governors of the school, consisting of such number of persons as the Minister may determine. All I am suggesting is that, before so determining, he ought to consult the local education authority. I am sure that any reasonable Minister would consult the local education authority but, in future, we may not have as reasonable a Minister as we have to-day.

Mr. Ede: I hope it will convince my hon. and learned Friend that my right hon. Friend is very reasonable if I say that I am instructed to accept this Amend.


ment Clearly, the local educational authority should have some voice in the arrangement of this instrument, in view of the heavy financial cost involved in this scheme.

Mr. Butler: Before the Amendment is put, Major Milner, may I say that the form of wording has been brought to my attention? It should be, after "may" to insert the words proposed. Will the hon. and learned Member accept that form? It comes to the same thing.

Mr. C. Davies: I am not sure. I prefer my English, but if that is the draftsman's English I give way.

Mr. Ede: Would the hon. and learned Member also mind withdrawing the word "concerned" from this Amendment? We are informed that the English would be improved by doing so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 15, line 46, after "may", insert:
after consultation with the local education authority."—[Mr. C. Davies.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir Frank Sanderson: On a point of Order, Major Milner, may I ask whether it is your intention to rule out the Amendment standing in my name?

The Chairman: I have not selected the hon. Member's Amendment. In point of fact, it is out of Order, as it is not in the right place.

Mr. Lipson: While I have opposed every attempt to make any rigid recommendation in regard to the constitution of these governing bodies, I think it is advisable that governing bodies should be as aware as possible of the view of the Members of the Committee as to their constitution, so that they may, at least, have guidance. I would express the hope that when the local education authorities are appointing their governing bodies of secondary schools, they should consider the advisability of having members of the teaching staff on those governing bodies. That would tend to improve the spirit of co-operation in the school and would be

all to the good of the school. I should also like to see a representative of the assistant masters or mistresses, If that were done, there would be a greater understanding between the governing body and the staff than exists at present, and difficulties that might be serious if they were not dealt with in time, could be brought to the notice of the governing body. At the same time, I think the staffs would appreciate the difficulties that the governing bodies would also have to overcome. It is really applying to our schools something of the principle we have set up in industry, so far as local production committees are concerned. If the education authority would bear the advisability of this in mind, I think it would make for the better working of the Bill and achieve the objects we all have in mind.

Mr. E. Harvey: I was very glad to hear the suggestion made by my hon. Friend opposite, because I know that a large number of the members of the staffs of secondary schools would warmly support the idea that there should be some method of representation for them on the governing bodies of these schools. I am glad the Government have made clear that they wish a wide field of choice for the governors of these schools, because it is important that we should get the best men and women, those most qualified and interested in education, to serve in this way. If that is to be done it is vital that governing bodies should have same real power entrusted to them. They must not be—as they so often are to-day—governors in name only; they must meet at the school, visit it frequently, become friends of the teachers, and be interested in the old boys and the old girls and in the out-of-school activities of the pupils. If you are to attract the services of the right type of person you must entrust that person with some powers. It should be a regular practice of the governing body to meet in the school, or schools, for which they are responsible.
I know a case where a board of governors met in the office of the local education authority. The headmaster of the school persuaded some of them to visit the school for which they were responsible. They did so, they showed the greatest interest, and later he was able to persuade them to meet at the school, to the great annoyance of the director of education. We do not want governors who are


shadows, with no intimate knowledge of the school they are governing. Therefore I hope that we may get from the Parliamentary Secretary an assurance that in order to get the right people to take up this great service governors will be given definite responsibility, that efforts will be made to see that they are kept in living touch with the school or schools, and that they do not just meet in the offices of the local education authority.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). I hope the Government will consider putting into the Bill a direction which will bring about that very necessary liaison between governors and schools. Governors are very busy men and they have not that detailed knowledge of the inner workings of a school. I understand that there is a tendency for headmasters to be excluded from governors' meetings and if they could attend it would be of great benefit in governing the school properly. I think that assistant masters, also, should have the chance of being able to put their case personally, on behalf of their colleagues, at these meetings.

Captain Cobb: The need has been expressed frequently during this Debate of the necessity of having, as governors, people who are interested in the school and its activities. I do not think you will get anybody who is more interested than an effective representative of an old boys' or an old girls' association. It is of the first importance that the right of an old boys' or an old girls' association to be represented on a governing body should be fully recognised. What I have to say on this subject applies also to parents' associations, although the rights of old boys' or old girls' associations are, in my opinion, far greater than the parents' rights. I have been told—and it is almost unbelievable—that some secondary schools seldom allow headmasters or headmistresses to attend governors' meetings. Everyone will agree that this is most undesirable. It is of great importance that the rules which apply to these governing bodies should make it dear that headmasters or headmistresses have the right to attend every meeting of the governors.

Sir G. Schuster: I also wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on the representation

of assistant masters and to express my agreement with the sentiments of other Members. The question of the reality of the interest of governing bodies is one of the key points regarding the future development of the whole of this plan. Although one cannot lay down precise regulations now, as to how they are to function, this is a matter which Parliament ought to watch. This will be a testing point of the way in which the plan works, if my right hon. Friend's ideas are to become a reality. I would like my right hon. Friend to say that at some reasonable date, after the passing of this Bill, there shall be a detailed review of the working of governing bodies, and that a report shall be made to the House so that everyone who serves on a governing body or a governing council shall know that his activities will be brought under review, and that Parliament will take an interest in what he is doing. If we put on record now that we want that, it will have a valuable effect on this whole plan.

Mr. Messer: Old scholars' and parents' associations exist only because they are interested in their schools. I am in favour of the suggestion which has been made, because it will bring to governing bodies people who know something about education. It has been said that, by some mysterious means, there have gravitated to the board of governors of foundation schools people who know a great deal about education, and that you do not get such people as members of local education authorities. I happen to be a governor of four different types of school. My experience is that local authority education committees only attract those who are interested in education. We shall be assured that there is some one who has a personal and real interest in the school, if we provide for representation of parents and old scholars' associations.

Mr. Lindsay: I think the root point is that pointed out by the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Harvey). I know something of the background from which he was talking. What we object to is the Education Office, rather than the school, becoming the centre of gravity, and we can quote examples where we know of its existence. I know that these things exist. It is a very difficult role that the headmaster has to play.


We want some safeguard, although we realise that in many areas the relations are admirable.

Mr. Ede: I think the Committee has had a very useful discussion, because it has enabled the Committee to make clear to the country, to local education authorities and to governing bodies the high store it sets upon the work of governing bodies. With regard to what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) has said, I am sure he will agree that the number of cases where there is excessive tyranny by the education office over the secondary school is not very large, and it would be very wrong for it to go out from this Committee that there is general oppression of the secondary school by the local education authority.
There are a few cases where, quite clearly, reform is necssary, but they can be met most ably by taking note of better examples with which these authorities are surrounded. I particularly welcome what has been said about the position of the head teacher in relation to the governing body. We have placed in the Bill for the first time, in Clause 16, a stipulation that the position of the head teacher in relation to the governing body shall be settled in the articles of government. I cannot think that any articles of government in future will be so framed as to allow the head teacher to be excluded from the governing body while the ordinary policy of the school is discussed. If they are considering whether they should give him an increment of salary, he would probably desire to be absent from the discussion, and there might also be occasions when, in the interest of all concerned, he should be excluded. But I am sure his right to attend in normal circumstances will be secured to him by the articles of government.
We also heartily endorse what has been said by several Members on the position of old scholars' and parents' associations. We think it very desirable that, in order that the spirit of the schools shall be maintained, and even made known on occasion to the governing body, the old scholars' associations should have representation when there is a suitable old scholar who may be appointed. After all, a school must have had some ten or 12 years of life before it will get any person who can properly be recruited, but after that

period I hope old scholars' associations will be regarded as one of the best recruiting grounds for the appointment of governors, whether they are appointed by the foundation, or by the local education authority. We have emphasised, again and again, that we desire that each of these secondary schools should have an individual life closely related to the children who attend it and to the district which it serves, and all the healthy influences which can be recruited from the environment on to the governing body will, we believe, make for a greater appreciation of secondary education, both by the people and by parents.

Mr. Lipson: The hon. Gentleman made no reference to the representation of assistant masters and mistresses. Will he make it clear that he will welcome that too?

Mr. Ede: In some of these matters, we must leave a certain amount of discretion to the local education authority. There is a dispute in some quarters whether it should be a member of the assistant staff or a person whom they nominate from outside their own numbers. We have every desire that the collective wisdom of the assistant staff should be available to the governing body, and that will be increasingly necessary as the schools get larger and the opportunities for promotion of assistant teachers get less in consequence. These experienced people should be able, in suitable circumstances, to make their wishes known with regard to the condition of the school and their view as to the way it should be developed.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Grouping of schools under one management.)

The Chairman: Before calling on the mover of the first Amendment, may I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if the whole question of grouping was discussed on it?

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of PROFESSOR GRUFFYDD: In page 16, line 10, after "authority", to insert "of a county borough."

Professor Gruffydd: I suppose that the matters included in this Amendment are within the range of the proposals to be made by the Minister later on. The point


of the Amendment is not to give a county borough a special privilege but to exclude from the provisions of Clause 19 all except county boroughs. I take it that this proposal will be answered by the Minister later on and I shall therefore not press the Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Harvey: I beg to move, in page 16, line 12, to leave out "two or more."
This Amendment is to be read with a following Amendment—in line 13, after "them," to insert "not exceeding four in number." It is moved with a view to making provision to see that too many schools are not grouped together and placed under one board of governors or managers, because the effect of that will be that the governors or managers will lose the intimate touch with the schools which is essential if they are to do their duty as I feel sure the Government and the Committee want them to do. There is a real danger that local education authorities might, in some cases—I do not believe it would apply to wise and enlightened authorities—but they might in some cases, for administrative convenience, looking at it from a shortsighted point of view, combine under one body with a few outside members, a large group of schools. That would take away the influence and interest that Members ought to have in the schools under their charge. I do not like four being under one body. It should mostly be a smaller number, one or two, but there may be exceptional reasons for larger groupings and four ought to be the maximum.
We ought not to leave the Clause so widely worded and open the door to a real danger. We must preserve the living interest of the governors or managers in the schools under their care, and we cannot do that if we put too many schools under one body. I can speak from personal experience of many years ago when I was a manager of elementary schools in East London. It is hard to have an intimate personal knowledge of teachers and children in a considerable group. I was manager of a group of three schools, each of which had a boys', girls' and infants' department. I felt that I could not take an equal interest in all the schools and I closely associated myself with one of them, although of course I had to try to do my duty by the others. It is physically impossible to look after

more than a small number of schools if you are to do your duty.

Mr. Lindsay: I support my hon. Friend's Amendment and would also mention my own Amendment, the effect of which is to separate primary from secondary schools. This is not because of any distinction between managers or governors, but because I think a school should have a life of its own and it is impossible to have managers or governors for both primary and secondary schools. The effect of these Amendments is to insist on that. I have a letter here from which I should like to read a sentence:
It is good there should be the variety in school outlook and personnel. It is the basic and most creative element in English life. Schools are built on personalities, not regulations. Clause 19 will remove the last hope of imparting personality and variety to the most intensely personal service in social life.

Mr. Butler: That is an exaggeration.

Mr. Lindsay: It may be an exaggeration, but it is written by one of the most experienced headmasters in England. The idea that we should not have a separate governing body for secondary schools is a frightening one to anyone who has ever been on a governing body. I can see the point of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey), because there are cases like the King Edward VI school at Birmingham where there is a governing body for six schools. It does not, I understand, work badly, but there is a great tradition which has been going on for hundreds of years. There is also the case of the trust at Bedford where there are four schools under a governing body. There is also the Girls' Public Day School Trust under which there are a number of schools. That is not a very good argument, however, because ancient traditions are involved and the grouping is of schools which have comparable ideals. In some places freedom is gained where there are a large number of schools and members of the education committee are so busy that they cannot visit them. That is no guarantee that they are looked after, they are just left, and from that point of view they gain freedom. That is not what we want, however. We want to encourage people to take a personal interest in the schools. If a higher education committee acts as a governing body for 10 schools, there cannot be a personal life and interest


in the schools. That is the main reason for our objection to the Clause as it stands.

Captain Cobb: The object of the Amendment in my name—in line 13, to leave out from "them," to end of line 15, and insert: "being primary schools"—is the same as that of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). It is to ensure that every secondary school shall have a separate governing body. I do not agree with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey), who wants to confine the grouping of primary schools to not more than two. In large towns, certainly in London, virtually all the elementary schools are in groups of four under one body of managers.

Mr. Harvey: My Amendment says four with that in view.

Captain Cobb: If my hon. Friend wants to limit it to four I am happy to agree with him. That is all right for the elementary schools, what are now to be called the primary schools, but I contend that it is not good enough for the secondary schools. I want every secondary school to have a board of governors just as the public, independent and direct grant schools have. It is the wish of everybody to raise the status of the secondary schools, to make them, in fact, really secondary schools. If we are to achieve that end we ought to give them the same kind of governing body as existing secondary schools have to-day. If we group secondary schools into three or four under one governing body, we shall not get the personal interest of the governors in the schools.
I would be happy to have members of the local authority appointed to the governing body. I used to find when I was a member of the Education Committee of the London County Council, that the members who were appointed to the governing bodies of the secondary schools, in order to watch the Council's interests, shortly became advocates for the secondary school at the meetings of the higher education committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) will bear me out in that. That is a good sign, because it shows that these people are really taking a personal interest in the welfare of the schools of which they are governors.

There is the danger that if the new secondary schools are grouped in the same way as the elementary schools are, the impression will go abroad that the claim we make that we are providing secondary education for all is nothing but eyewash. That would be an unfortunate impression to create in the minds of the public. I want the secondary schools to have a life of their own and to have a body of governors who are vitally interested in their development. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept the principle of these Amendments and will ensure that secondary schools are not treated for this purpose in the same way as the elementary schools.

Sir P. Harris: I want to endorse the very excellent speech that we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member, who was a very distinguished chairman of the Education Committee of London. He has had vast experience, and I agree with every word he said. I think he will agree—and this applies to most parts of the country—that when you have to find men and women to act as governors or managers of primary schools it may be necessary to group. I suggest that we should remember that we are passing an Act of Parliament and that to put figures, numbers, limitations and qualifications into it will handicap local authorities when they try to administer it. We must have some confidence in the guiding hand of the President of the Board of Education, and elasticity and discretion. The more we try to bind local authorities by putting figures or limitations into the Measure, the more difficult it will be to work it.

Mr. Butler: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) represents exactly the views of the Government, and I am very grateful to him for putting it so clearly before the Committee. We are not at all against the spirit of the Amendment, but it is necessary to take some powers. The major powers that we have spent so much time on to-day are a re-enactment of existing legislation. It is time that the Committee were reminded of that fact, and of the fact that if we are to go over existing legislation in the way we have done to-day we may have difficulty in making the progress that we desire. There is an addition here, which has been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb), and that


is the effect upon the secondary schools. It may be thought alarming, particularly after the discussion we have had on having governing bodies for secondary schools, that it should be possible in some instances that they should be grouped. The reason for that is that, frankly, we have discussed this matter with those who are responsible for administration of education in our great cities, and they tell me—and I have had an opportunity of personal discussion with them, men who really run the education of the country—that it is absolutely essential to have a power to amalgamate certain schools which will fall within the secondary sphere—I do not wish to particularise which schools—partly because, in a compact city, you will get overlapping of personnel and of problems. Therefore, the Government have taken these powers, over and above those in existing legislation, to deal with the secondary position. That makes it difficult for me to accept the Amendment which applies solely to primary schools, and therefore I cannot accept it.
I turn to the position as put by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) as to whether we could limit the number to four or to two, as he suggested. I am afraid, although it may very likely be the case that four would be a perfectly sensible number, that it would be unwise to take that power in the Statute itself. It might conceivably be the case that one city might want to nominate five, which would bring them outside the Statute. This brings the Committee up against the question of what it is wise to put in an Act of Parliament and what it is not. Other hon. Members who took part in the Debate have certainly put points of view in regard to the philosophy of education administration to which I take no exception at all.
I should therefore like to assure the Committee that, in this Clause, we are taking powers for which we have been asked by the leading education administrators of the country and that it is not the intention of the Government that the Clause should be so operated that the independence of schools will be overrun and destroyed, or that we should so amalgamate secondary schools that what we have been saying will have been rendered of no value. The only weakness in my argument is that I cannot offer to

the Committee any definite legal provision whereby what they want would be secured, but I want to ask the Committee whether they think it wise that the Amendment should be pressed. I would rather have the Clause with its general powers, with the understanding that it will not be misused. From the information I have, I can say that there is no intention on the part of the important authorities to misuse the Clause.

Mr. Lindsay: I should be pleased to withdraw the Amendment if the Minister would make one concession. Does he or does he not favour one governing body for primary and secondary schools in any case?

Mr. Butler: I prefer schools to have their own individual governing bodies. There is power here in certain cases, which I do not think will be very many, to amalgamate, and I do not want to eliminate it, because the request for it has been made to us by the authorities. I should rather leave the Clause as it stands in that respect.

Mr. E. Harvey: I am sorry that the President has not gone a little further and I should be glad if, even now, he would give the Committee an assurance that he would consider the possibility at a later stage of finding words which would enable him to prevent the worst abuse—which he admits would be serious—arising from the grouping together of too large a number of schools. I think he agrees, and the Committee agree, that that would tend to destroy the individuality of the schools and would make it very difficult for the governors to do their duty. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman consulted headmasters he would get the strongest impression that no board of governors is in favour of this grouping. It always means a loss to the individual schools. It may be necessary, for some extraneous reason and in some cases, but it is a regrettable thing when it happens. I hope that the President will consider giving us an assurance that he will not put aside the idea of finding words at a later stage to safeguard schools from this danger.

Mr. Butler: I will certainly return to the sources from whom these ideas are derived, particularly those who are responsible for schools and including those worthy people, the headmasters and head-


mistresses, who are so keen on the independence of their schools. If the hon. Gentleman will not press me further I will certainly be ready to do that, but I must warn the Committee that this proposal is what is generally desired.

Mr. Harvey: In view of the President's assurance, for which I am very grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Powers of local education authority as to use and care of premises of auxiliary schools.)

Mr. C. Davies: rose—

The Chairman: Before the hon. and learned Member moves his Amendment, I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time other Amendments relating to this matter.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. C. Davies: I beg to move, in page 17, line 25, to leave out from "that," to "for," in line 29, and to insert:
they shall not be occupied or used except.
We are now reaching the Clauses relating to the power of local authorities over the use of the premises of auxiliary and controlled schools. The Clause states that the school premises of controlled schools
shall be occupied and used in accordance with the directions of the local education authority, so, however, that the managers or governors of the school shall be entitled to determine the use to which the school premises or any part thereof shall be put on Sundays and on Saturdays except when required to be used on Saturdays for the purposes of the school or for any purpose connected with education.
That constitutes what I think has been an evil in the past, of the use of the school by persons other than the school children. It ought to be sacred for school purposes. May I tell the Committee that while I was conducting an inquiry, mainly a health inquiry, which involved inquiry into the conditions in schools and so on, not only teachers but doctors also came before me and said time and time again, "It is wrong to have the school used by persons other than children. The school is left

by the children, say at four o'clock. Arrangements are then made for cleaning the school. Then that night in will tramp men with muddy boots and so on and the children come there in the morning to find the school has been knocked about by those adults who have been using the school for their purposes during the previous evening."

Sir P. Harris: Would the hon. and learned Member exclude the use of day elementary schools or primary schools for evening institutes? If he did he would paralyse the work of evening institutes in all our great cities.

Mr. Davies: This Sub-section of the Clause, as I seek to amend it, will read:
The school premises of a controlled school shall be occupied and used in accordance with the directions of the local education authority, so, however, that they shall not be occupied or used except for the purposes of the school or for any purpose connected with education or with the welfare of the young for which the local education authority desire to provide accommodation on the premises.…
So long as it is being used for educational purposes the Amendment I propose does not affect it. But in these country schools especially—I am not so familiar with the use to which schools are being put in London—the school is the one and only place where evening meetings are held. The members of the Farmers' Institute, for instance, will come tramping into that school at 6 or 7 p.m. It is used with any meeting in connection with the village. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The school should be sacred to the use of children. There should be another building for such gatherings. There should be, in every village, a village institute. My point is that the school should be used for educational purposes for the children and should not be used for general public purposes.

Mr. Wakefield: Can the hon. and learned Member say whether the education of the children is going to be hurt by the school building being used for other purposes during the evening?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member had been listening, which is not the habit of the hon. Member—

Mr. Wakefield: I have been listening to every word the hon. and learned Member has said.

The Deputy-Chairman: It will solve the question if I point out that I was listening.

Mr. Davies: I know, Mr. Williams, and my remarks were addressed to you. My view is not based on my own experience only but on the evidence tendered by doctor after doctor giving their description of the health of the school children, and every one of them saying that one of the things we ought to avoid was the use of the school for purposes other than the education of the children. They think it affects the condition of the premises to which the children have to come—a dusty place. One has only to go into these country schools—

Mr. Wakefield: Open up the windows.

Mr. Davies: If they say they have nowhere else to go why use the school? Why not use the church? That horrifies hon. Members at once. [An HON. MEMBER, "No."] Very often Nonconformist chapels are used, quite rightly, but these small schoolrooms should be kept for the children and for no other purpose. They are designed for the children, and in the interests of the health of the children, which is the thing that matters. They should be kept clean, sanitary, airy, entirely for the children, and not put to uses for which they were not built or intended. I quite agree that up to the present, where there have not been the amenities in the country districts which ought to exist, halls should be built. There ought to be village institutes where the people can meet. Now that we are starting to raise the standard of the school—the type of the building—it should be kept for the children. If we go to this great expense to build a new type of school, then build it for the children and not for the adults. If they want their own institute, or hall or whatever it is, that should be built separately. That is the whole point and I hope it commends itself to the Government.

Sir Joseph Lamb: On a point of Order. I have three Amendments down. Are they covered? Will they be called, or must I speak to the subject on this Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: They are not being called.

Sir J. Lamb: I take it I must speak to this Amendment if I want to bring forward my point.

The Deputy-Chairman: If it is relevant to this Amendment.

Sir J. Lamb: May I say I entirely dissociate myself—

Mr. Butler: Perhaps if my hon. and learned Friend, who has shown himself so businesslike, realises the significance of the Amendment he would not press it but would let us get on with some other points. What he has in mind is very important. It is desirable that the children should not be crowded out of their small schools by people who want it for other functions. That has sometimes been the case in the past, because the school is the only available place. On the other hand, some of the most remarkable schools in the country, the country colleges, are deliberately built in order to be centres of social life and to take the place of the medieval centre of the village, which was the church. I hope the schools of the country will stand up to the challenge themselves, and not be frightened of becoming nuclei of village life. That does not mean we want the classrooms crowded with people wearing dirty boots. The effect of this Amendment would in fact be to remove from the purview of the foundation managers, the use of the school on Saturday and Sunday, because the position is that the school in the later part of the Clause is made available for local authority use during the week. If the hon. and learned Member persisted in his Amendment he would have dirty boots in the week, and no Sunday school on Sunday, and the Sunday school on Sunday is just the one thing which is being reserved to the foundation managers in addition to the provision for doctrinal teaching. This is an example of the fact that the best of intentions may lead to results which are not desired. As that is the result of that Amendment I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member wishes to pursue it. I am sure that that does not represent the whole of his intention.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: There is another aspect of this matter regarding the use of schools for non-school purposes which has not been touched on by the Minister and which may properly be referred here. I do not go all the way with my hon. and learned Friend in the question of the use of the school for other than school purposes, but there was one slip in the Minister's speech when he said that what was


preserved to the foundation managers was the use of the school on Sunday. I would point out to him that there is also reserved to them, subject to the requirements for religious purposes, control in the use of the school on Saturday. Those of us who know the country know very well that Saturday night is the most popular night of the whole week for a large range of social and serious purposes. I am concerned to see that, whatever the period of use of the school for non-school purposes, it shall be freely and fairly open to every social and other activity, without respect to denomination. It is most important that this should be so. I could easily raise considerable feeling in the Committee if I quoted some of the instances of one-sided exercise of control of existing school premises.

Mr. Butler: Under Sub-section (2) it would be possible for the authority to get the school on Saturday night if it wanted to.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: Sub-section (2) says:
If the local education authority desire to provide accommodation for any purpose connected with education or with the welfare of the young and are satisfied ….
I suggest that those words of limitation would exclude the possibility of classes, such as are given in my little village now, in musical instruction. In any event, there are words of distinct limitation in Subsection (2), and it would be very difficult to bring in some of the social gatherings that are held on Saturday nights. What about the whist drive, which is quite a popular institution in many parts of the country on a Saturday night, connected with which there are often a few musical items, or even a political speech, which might or might not be educational? But very great importance is attached by those who organise events in connection with which these things are arranged to getting the only available building, and I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, to see that, so far as Saturday night is concerned, there is equality of opportunity, so that on Saturday night the school shall be free and open for everybody, like the door of the Ritz, without regard to denomination. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some indication of his readiness to see equality of treatment extended.

Mr. Butler: The answer is that the whist drive would presumably be organised by the managers, or under their auspices; and, as this is a controlled school, the majority of the managers would be appointed by the local education committee. Thus, you could have a whist drive on Saturday night, and all the music you wanted, without getting into trouble under the Clause.

Mr. C. Davies: Now that the Minister has made it quite clear that he is seized of the very point that I wanted to raise, namely, the need to protest against the misuse of the school, and as I can well understand that I have drawn the Amendment much too widely, and that it would have the effect of limiting the educational centre which we all want to see, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, to leave out "local education authority," and to insert "governors of the school."

Mr. Butler: I will let the Committee into a secret, by saying that I find it difficult to accept this Amendment, but that I shall be able to meet the hon. Member a little later, on the next Amendment in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton)—to leave out "appointment, dismissal," in line 3, and to insert "number."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 18, line 3, to leave out "appointment, dismissal," and to insert "number."

Mr. Butler: I propose to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir J. Lamb: The Minister has now agreed that these schools shall be used on Saturdays and Sundays for purposes other than education. I want to know what provision there is that the authorities can charge for heating, cleaning, and lighting on those occasions. It is our custom now to allow these schools to be used, but we invariably make a charge to cover the initial cost of the lighting,


cleaning and heating of the schools. In the Bill there is no provision for that, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that there will be power for the authority to make those claims, as in the past. That is perhaps the only point I had better raise, because I was not fortunate enough to be able to move my Amendments.

Mr. Brooke: I want to refer to something that was said by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). He drew attention to the possibility that the managers of the school would adopt a somewhat militant attitude as regards Saturday nights, and my right hon. Friend, quite rightly, pointed out that the majority of the managers would be appointed by the local education authority; so, if the hon. and learned Member's fears were based on ecclesiasticism, they were, one hopes, misplaced. But he was, I think, making a point of substance, that if this Clause, determining the use of controlled schools, is to work satisfactorily, it depends entirely on a relationship of good will being established between the local education authority and the managers of the schools. Otherwise, as he said, there might be trouble on Saturday nights; also, it might operate the other way round. There is, unfortunately, a certain number—a very small number—of local education authorities which are militantly hostile to Church schools of any kind. One cannot tell whether there will be a hangover of that in the case of the controlled schools. It would be an unfortunate thing if that attitude were to lead the local education authority to refuse, as a matter of principle and policy, any and every application by the managers of the school for the use of the school on any weeknight except Saturday. That was the reason underlying an Amendment of mine, which was not called. Somehow or other we have to ensure that there will be a friendly relationship. My own view is both that the managers should pay attention to the wishes of the village on Saturdays, and also that the managers should be regarded by the local education authority as not being in quite the same position as any other claimant, but as having a stronger claim than others, when application is made for the use of a school by them on a weeknight. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member

for Carmarthen nods his head, because it is only by good and practical relationship like that that we can make the Clause work.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be able to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend who sits behind me. The Committee will recall that, when we discussed the question of electoral reform, views were expressed in all parts of the House that it might be possible for local authorities to place schools at the disposal of candidates during a General Election.

Sir J. Lamb: I was not referring to elections, but to the use of schools for other purposes.

Colonel Evans: I was aware of what was in my hon. Friend's mind, but if his proposal was carried out, it would cover a far larger area of consideration than was present in my own mind and that of my hon. Friend. Therefore, before we agree to a restriction of that kind we ought to bear the other considerations in mind.

Sir J. Mellor: Is there any reason why the managers or governors of a school should not be entitled to determine the uses to which a school should be put upon any week day during periods of school holidays?

Captain Prescott: I am neither a member of the Church of England nor a Roman Catholic, but I would like to add a word to what has been said about the use of school premises not only on Saturday and Sunday nights, but also on other days of the week. I understand that as the Clause is framed it would be impossible for managers to authorise the use of a school on any night other than Saturday or Sunday unless the purpose was connected with education or the welfare of the young. I approve of the uses to which these schools are put on evenings during the week. They are, in many cases, the centre of community life in village and town. That is so not only in regard to one denomination but all denominations, to mention the Mothers' Union alone. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would be possible, with certain safeguards, to allow schools to be used on any evenings during the week, if they were cleaned up afterwards.


It would be of great benefit to the community.

Mr. Butler: The position as stated by my hon. Friend is not really too bad. There is a distinction between those responsible for letting the school for different purposes. In the case of managers the school can be used for the purpose desired, and when it is an authority it can be used in the interests of the welfare of the young, and between them they cover the whole of life. Therefore, the anxiety which my hon. Friend expresses should not worry him unduly. I will pay attention to what has been said after reading the thing over again. I do not think any new point has been made.
The point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) is met by the definition of "maintenance" in Clause 103 (2, a). He may rest assured that under that definition the sort of expenses like those which he fears might be forced upon the authority are not expenses of the school, and as such cannot be charged legitimately to the authority. We had looked into that before he raised it, because we were anxious that the authorities should not have extra expense put upon them. The Committee, as apart from these particular points, discussed everything except the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who sits opposite. He asked whether in a non-school period—a holiday period—a school can be used? The answer is, that it can be used by the authority, but under the definition, namely, "welfare of the young," it could be used for youth purposes or anything else. The Clause is drafted in a way which has met the views of hon. Members, and I hope that it will be possible for us to have the Clause.

Mr. Loftus: The use of a school in the evening has been defined as for the purposes of welfare or education connected with the young. I will give an instance. I knew of a village school 15 years ago which was more full after the official hours of school than when technically open. It had a wonderful schoolmaster, and the children used to come back in the evenings, and the grown-ups used to join them in the school, which was the centre for arts and crafts in the village. It produced a school magazine. Parents used the school in the evening.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Secular instruction in county schools and in auxiliary schools.)

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 18, line 16, to leave out, "except an aided secondary school."
This Amendment is consequential upon a later Amendment, which I have upon the Paper. [Laughter.] The amusement of hon. Members shows how difficult it is to follow this complicated Bill. The question which I want to ask is a legitimate one. Will the later Amendment, which is to leave out Sub-section (2), be called?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not concerned with the later Amendment at the moment. The Ruling is that the present Amendment can be discussed now, but if the hon. Member does not wish to do so, that is another matter.

Mr. Cove: Would it be possible to have an indication as to how wide the discussion may be on this Amendment? Will it cover a discussion on the Amendment which I have on the Paper—in page 18, line 18, to leave out from "shall," to "be," in line 19? I do not know whether I am correct in saying that I heard that my Amendment was not going to be called.

The Deputy-Chairman: As far as I can make out from the Amendment that has been moved, there should be a general Debate here on the extent of control. I do not want it to be too narrow and I do not want it to be unlimited in length.

Sir J. Lamb: The local authority will have the control of secular education in the county secondary school, and they wish to have the control of secular education in the auxiliary school. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to make the alteration suggested to enable them to have the control of secondary schools which they have in the council schools?

Mr. Cove: This raises rather an important issue. The Clause as it stands provides that in county controlled schools and special grammar schools, secular instruction should be under the control of the local education authority, except where the rules of procedure of regulations of government provide otherwise. I take strong exception to the exception


that is being incorporated in the Clause. As I understand it, secular inspection is under the control, even in the Church schools, of the local education authorities. As we now have this Clause drafted, it will allow it to pass away from the authorities and to go to the managers. Here we are up against this fundamental principle—the same principle which we had earlier to-day—that, where public money is granted for public service and for running schools, there should be public control. That is the issue that is involved in this Clause, and, of course, it is a first class issue. I must say that the Clause as drafted is really retrogressive.

Mr. R. Morģan: Is the hon. Member referring to Clause 22, Part I or Part II?

Mr. Cove: I understand that the Deputy-Chairman has allowed a discussion of the principles involved in the whole of the Clause. It is perfectly clear that the Clause does now allow an escape, if you like to put it that way, from public control. I hope the Minister will therefore look at this again and see if he can meet us. It is the same thing running through the whole business. Public authorities are being squeezed out and are not getting the standing and control that they had, and I hope the Minister will look at this again.

Mr. Butler: I really think that this situation is not quite so serious as hon. Members imagine, because of the reference to the rules of management or articles of government of the schools, which are saved by the deliberate expression "saving them" included in the section. The general principles of the control of secular instruction, some of which I adumbrated in my original speech, will apply to all types of secondary education, and, therefore, to the extent that I have still to acquaint the Committee with the contents of those general principles, the hon. Member need not get unduly depressed, and, therefore, there is not so big an issue in this as he may imagine.
I am in the hands of the Committee. If they will accept from me that we cannot fully appreciate the full significance of this until we have clearly in mind the content of the general principles, then I think it would be unnecessary to have a long Debate on this question at this stage. If, on the other hand, the Committee wants to consider the matter at greater length, I think the Government

should not initiate a long discussion at this hour and I would not press the matter. We have made considerable progress and are more or less up to our schedule, and therefore the Government do not wish to press the Committee. If they can accept from me that there is a great deal of work to do on the next Sitting Day, if we are to keep to our schedule—we have got approximately half-way already—I think we may not press the Committee for any further work now. If they will accept from me that this is really a matter to be more fully explained when Members realise the contents of the general principles, perhaps the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. The ideal course for the Government would be that this Amendment should not be pressed, and that we should get this Clause under the general umbrella of what I said earlier.

The Deputy-Chairman: On the point of Order, I should point out that this would be, strictly speaking, irregular.

Mr. Cove: I would not like to allow this Clause to go through without some further discussion, and I think it would facilitate business if we had further discussion. It does raise important issues, and I should be glad to discuss them at some convenient time.

The Deputy-Chairman: May I suggest that a way out of the difficulty would be that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and then a full discussion could take place on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill?

Mr. C. Davies: That is what I was going to suggest. If we could dispose of the Amendment and have our general discussion on the next Sitting Day, on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I think it would meet with general approval.

Mr. R. Morģan: Should we have a chance of discusing Sub-section (2) under the promise given?

Mr. Butler: That would arise on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Messer: There is very deep concern about this. There is a fear that the attempt made by county councils, who have done their best to unify education in both direct-grant and aided schools, may


be weakened, unless there is an Amendment. Do I understand that if the Amendment is withdrawn and we discuss the Question on the Clause standing part, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make an announcement?

Mr. Butler: I do not like the word "announcement." I will be prepared further to clarify the situation, but I do not think I can do it now. It is on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" that I can best do it.

Sir J. Lamb: I think this does want further clarification, and, on the promise given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—[Captain McEzeien.] put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — SERVICE PERSONNEL (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEzven.]

Mr. Huģh Lawson: I am very much obliged to the Financial Secretary to the War Office for coming down and giving me the opportunity of raising certain points on the question of political activities in the Services. I feel that I must apologise to the House for raising such an important matter on the Adjournment Motion, but it appears to be the only way in which I could raise it, though I am sorry it has come at such a late hour. Within the time we have, I do feel that I must put these points, and I want to do so not because they affect me in any way, but because they are matters of very general concern to all hon. Members of this House, and also to the public generally, particularly those in the Fighting Services. Though the matter under consideration applies only to the Army, I feel that the principles involved apply to the other Services as well. It seems to me that the issue is very simple indeed. I think there are two fundamental human rights involved. The first

is freedom of speech and the second is the right of free association for political purposes.
I do not think there is any need in this House to say that these rights are important, but I would like to point out that these are rights which I think we can claim are absolute rights. They are not, for instance, like the rights we all have to pass over the King's highway, which is hedged in by rules that we must drive on a certain side of the road and, when a signal is given, we must stop. These are rules made so that we can pass more easily. But these two rights, freedom of speech and political association, are derived from something much more fundamental than that, and I would particularly appeal to the Financial Secretary to remember the history of the Labour Party, which is based on these rights. I want to say this, that I think this House gets its authority from a consideration of these rights. If it were not for the conception of freedom of speech and political association, this House could never have come into being, and therefore, nothing that this House can do can in any way impair these rights. Democracy, in other words, cannot remove democracy. When we turn from this to what is actually in the King's Regulations, I think we find the situation is somewhat different and I would remind the House that paragraph 541A reads as follows:
No officer or soldier … is permitted to take any active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party.…
Specifically, speaking in public is referred to. That is a Regulation which was drawn up, I think, for a peace-time Army, and it seems to me that a soldier or officer in joining the Army enters into a voluntary contract, if you like, with his employer, the State, to refrain from doing certain things. If he goes into that with his eyes open, that is his own business. It is not a thing that I personally would have done, but in war-time the situation is entirely different. Large numbers of people have been called up to join the Army and there are very large numbers of others who, while having volunteered, have only done so because of the dire necessity of the nation and have done so with, shall I say, mental reservations about this particular paragraph. I want to suggest that in war-time the spirit of these Regulations cannot apply.
This matter was raised previously in this House and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made a statement which I would like to quote. On reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, it seemed to me that this statement was received by the House with general agreement. He said:
I think it is extremely desirable that we should not be too literal in our interpretation of the King's Regulations.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th October, 1943; col. 691, Vol. 3921
That seemed to me very sensible, but I would remind the Financial Secretary that King's Regulations still stay as they are and a commanding officer must use these Regulations; he cannot refer to what some Minister is reported to have said in a newspaper. So that is the anomalous position in which we find ourselves, and in order to get it clarified I have asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will answer me on certain points. I am, therefore, going to read out the questions which I have asked the Financial Secretary to answer.

"1. Is the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton's question on the 12th October, 1943, that we should not be too literal in our interpretation of King's Regulations still the policy of the Government?
"2. Would the following be a reasonable interpretation of 'not too literal' in this connection, that during the war all ranks should be allowed to (a) be members of political parties, (b) be honorary office bearers in political parties, (c) speak at political meetings when in civilian clothes, (d) publish signed articles, pamplets, etc., on political matters, (e) go as delegates to political conferences, (f) where branches of political parties do not exist, to organise the same whether in this country or overseas. Subject always that these activities were only undertaken in the time that was free from military duties, and that they were not used to discuss the affairs of the unit in which the soldier was serving.
"3. If the Government do not accept the above, what are its reasons, and what are the alternatives?
"4. What is the Secretary of State proposing to do to remove the anomaly whereby the Secretary of State in his speech says one thing and the King's Regulations say another thing and, when I have put down questions asking him if he will issue a Regulation of Army Council Instruction to clarify the position, he has said there is no need to do so?
"5. Does the Government differentiate between what is allowed to a Member of Parliament who is a soldier, an adopted candidate who is a soldier, a person who was not a candidate who has been adopted for a specific constituency and is on the approved list of candidates of a political party, and, lastly, any other soldier?

"6. Will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to issue an Army Council Instruction setting out the conditions in which the soldier may be granted special leave to attend a Selection Board?"

Having put those questions—and what I want is a "Yes" to all of them—I want to support the general case for political freedom with one or two specific points on this matter of the political freedom of those in the Forces in war-time.
The first thing I would say is that we have developed in the Army this idea of education for citizenship through the Army Bureau of Current Affairs and kindred things. If you are having education of any sort, it is not the slightest good having the theoretical without the practical. It is no use learning from books, you have to put it into practice. Similarly, it is not the slightest good having political education unless you are going to put it into practice. Again, I think the Regulations at present are very far from being impartial. They discriminate in this way. If your political persuasion belongs to a party where candidates are normally chosen because of wealth and influence, you do not need to take part in political activity at all. All you need to do is to appear on the day of the selection board and it is quite possible to be adopted without having anything to do at all with politics. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but, in a democratic party, the only person who will ever get the chance of being adopted as a candidate is one who has proved his worth to his fellows by political activity. In this connection I want to say that if I have not broken King's Regulations in this matter consistently, for a good number of years, I would not have been asked to contest a seat and so be speaking here to-night. It does discriminate against those who can give only their personal services to a party and who are not in a position to use money or have any social position.
We have been at great pains in this war to provide machinery so that at the next General Election men and women in the Services can vote. If we have done that, surely the logical corollary is that if there is the right to vote there is the right to do these things which alone make voting a reasonable and an intelligent thing. Having taken some interest in politics, I do feel very strongly on


that point. Again, during this war controversial legislation has been postponed. We have been told "Oh, no, this cannot be gone into until after the next General Election." If we have postponed our controversial legislation, surely during the few weeks before the next General Election—which will certainly take place while many men and women are still in uniform—there will be an election campaign when we shall be asked to consider controversial matters. Therefore, if we are going to have any value from that election, we must realise that as the war gets nearer to its end the importance of allowing political activity in the Forces increases. I do, therefore, suggest that these are very weighty reasons why we should amend this Regulation. We give a soldier a right to stand for Parliament but we do not at present give him the right to do those things which bring him to the position where he can be accepted as a candidate. I have come in a reasonable and friendly manner into this Debate, but I want to say to the Financial Secretary to the War Office that we do not accept for one moment the fact that this Regulation has any force or validity. It may have been all right in peace-time but I, and many members of His Majesty's Forces, just do not accept it now. Whatever happens to this Regulation I, for one, will continue to do all I can to work against it, and I will recommend all my friends in the Armed Forces when they ask me about this to carry out the fundamental principles of democracy and break this Regulation.

Mr. Granville: I do not want to stand for more than a few minutes between the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to scrap these Regulations, because it is useless to have them on the stocks when you cannot carry them out. I read in a newspaper recently that troops had held a general election at a base in Cairo. At that election I think the Labour Party were returned at the top, while the Conservative Party were at the bottom of the poll. I would like to know whether that election was held under these Regulations? I am glad that it was held, because the troops were showing an interest in this war, which is supposed to be for democracy. The time

has come when the Government ought to be bold and scrap these Regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skip-ton also referred to the possibility of a coming General Election. I understand that a register is being prepared on the ration card basis, and that it would be possible to hold a General Election within the next four or five weeks. What do the Government propose to do if there is a General Election in May or June of this year and the Services are to be given an overseas vote by proxy? If the Government say that these Regulations are to be carried out the Forces will be denied any possible activity in party politics. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to answer the two points I have put. First, whether the election by the troops was held under the Regulations and, second, what do the Government propose to do if there is a General Election in two or three months' time? Are the troops overseas to be given a blind vote or to take an active part in that Election?

Mr. Maxton: I want to support the case put forward by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). I raised the matter some time ago, in relation to a young man belonging to my own party, and I was very upset and angry about it at that time. One of the annoying things about the whole business is that the two cases which have become the subject of definite War Office action apply to the smallest party group in the House. That does not smell right. It is not right and proper that the only two cases which have become the subject of definite War Office action should be those of a young private in the I.L.P. and a young Member of Parliament representing the Common Wealth Party. When the Minister answered the original Question I believed that something was going to be done, and I am still hoping that when the Army Annual Bill comes before us either that Regulation will be wiped out or some substantial alteration will be made in it to accord with the actual facts in our time, when a big proportion of the male adults of our country of an active age are in one or other of the armed Services. To say that they wilt have no say whatever in the political activities of the country is to me an impossible thing to say and at the same time claim to be a democracy.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): My hon. Friend very courteously gave me advance notice of the various points that he intended raising and I shall hope to deal with all of them as far as time permits. He stated that the basis of this discussion revolves round the application, or even the existence, of King's Regulation 541A. He quoted part of it but not the really operative part of it. He merely referred to the question of making speeches, whereas the real operative part is the restriction on taking an active part in the affairs of a political organisation or party. My hon. Friend made a statement which I hope on reflection he will regret having made. He said his advice to serving troops would be that they should not accept King's Regulations—

Mr. Lawson: This Regulation.

Mr. Henderson: —and, if necessary, should break it. He and I have both served in the Forces and he knows as well as I do that that is only encouraging Service personnel to commit acts of indiscipline. The constitutional way of dealing with the problem is to seek to amend the Army Annual Bill. I do not think it very desirable on the part of any responsible Member of Parliament to encourage serving soldiers to break this or any other Regulation. The hon. Gentleman raised the case that was raised in the Question of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) on 12th October, when my Tight hon. Friend said, in reply to a supplementary question, that it was extremely desirable that we should not be too literal in our interpretation of King's Regulations. On 8th February, in reply to a question of the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend explained what he meant. He said:
By a too literal interpretation of that Regulation I meant to the extent of making every minor infringement of it into a major disciplinary offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1944; col. 1608, Vol. 396.]
That statement means exactly what it says, and I have nothing to add to it or to withdraw from it. The hon. Gentleman asked that new Regulations should be issued so that Commanding Officers will know what they are to do about this Regulation. I do not believe that they are in much doubt what the Regulation means. Nor can I think that anything that my right hon. Friend said can be held to

countenance the doctrine that King's Regulations can be interpreted loosely at the will of the individual. At the same time, it is obvious that the enforcement of this or any other King's Regulation must be left to the discretion of the commanding officer concerned, subject to my right hon. Friend's statement. In the preface to the King's Regulations there is this sentence:
Officers are expected to interpret them reasonably and intelligently with due regard to the interest of the Service.
My hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions which I hope I shall have time to answer. The first was, "Can all ranks during the war be members of political parties?" My answer is, "Yes, they always have been allowed and still are allowed to be members of political parties." The second question was, "Can they be honorary office bearers?" My answer is, "Yes, provided they do not infringe 541A by taking an active part in the affairs of the organisation."

Mr. Granville: Is attending an annual meeting taking part?

Mr. Henderson: Making a speech would be regarded as taking an active part. My hon. Friend also asked, "Can they speak at political meetings when in civilian clothes? Can they publish signed articles and pamphlets on political matters? Can they act as delegates at political conferences? Where branches of political parties do not exist can they organise same?" My reply to these four questions is, "No, because they come within the prohibition contained in 541A, as each act would constitute taking an active part in the affairs of a political organisation or party."
I am also asked whether the Government differentiate between what is allowed for (a) a Member of Parliament, (b) an adopted candidate, (c) a person who, while not a candidate who has been adopted for a specific constituency, is on the approved list of a political party, and (d) any other soldier. The position of M.P.s and adopted candidates is governed by the War Office letter dated 11th April, 1940, which I have referred to in the House on previous occasions. It inter alia authorises M.P.s and adopted candidates to address public meetings in their constituencies and to send messages, letters, etc., for publication in the local Press in their constituencies. The only difference is that an M.P. may either wear uniform


or plain clothes, whereas the prospective candidate must not address meetings while in uniform. As regards a serving officer or soldier who is not a prospective candidate but who may desire to announce himself at a by-election, he may publicly announce himself or allow himself to be publicly announced as a candidate or prospective candidate provided he receives the permission of the Army Council. The object of that is to ensure that the correct formalities are observed. In fact, that permission is automatically given, but it has to be given before the public anouncement is made.
My hon. Friend suggests that a further A.C.I. should be issued setting out the conditions under which a soldier should be granted special leave to attend a selection board. That is not necessary, as a commanding officer has every discretion to give leave, up to 28 days, subject to military exigencies, and I do not think he would withhold permission in a bona fide case.
Finally, my hon. Friend has made an appeal for the maximum political freedom for all ranks. I personally do not believe there is any country in the world where there is greater political freedom than our own. It is inherent in the way of life for which we are fighting and sacrificing in the present conflict, but the Army traditionally, with very limited exceptions, has always kept out of party politics. It has always accepted the position that it is its duty to give complete loyalty to whatever Government is in power, irrespective of party complexion, and I, for one, hope

that the Army will never deviate from that position. That being so, it must involve some limitation of the political activity of those who are serving in the Army. As to the next General Election, in the past special instructions about political activities have been issued on the eve of a General Election, when the vast majority of the men in the Service are affected. This will be done on the eve of the next General Election. I can assure the House that, consistent with the reasonable requirements of discipline and with the interests of the Service, the fullest opportunities will be given to all Service personnel to exercise their rights as citizens for election purposes.

Mr. Driberģ: With regard to the publication of signed articles on political matters, the Minister may recall that an emphatic "Yes" was given in this House by the Prime Minister. Provided there is no propaganda for the policy of a particular party, men are left free to publish signed articles on broad political matters of a controversial nature.

Mr. A. Henderson: It is a question of fact whether they will come within 541A. If it be an article which is outside 541A, they can do it with impunity.

Mr. Granville: Does what the Minister said about prospective candidates apply to candidates from political parties, or to independent candidates as well?

Mr. Henderson: It applies to all prospective candidates.

Question, That this House do now adjourn; put, and agreed to.